The concept of the political elite is the iron law of the oligarchy. The essence of the theory of the "iron law of the oligarchy" R

Bureaucracy tends to degenerate into an oligarchy (Greek oligarchia - the power of a few, from oligos - a few and arche - power) - a form of government in which power belongs to a limited circle of people: the rich, the military, officials. R. Michels, a German sociologist, economist and historian, one of the founders of political sociology, was the first to discover and analyze such a pattern, who called this phenomenon the “iron law of the oligarchy”. According to this law, democracy - in order to preserve itself and achieve stability - is forced to create organizations, which leads to the emergence of an elite - an active minority in which the masses must trust, since they cannot exercise direct control over them. In a society dominated by large formal organizations, there is a great danger that sooner or later the totality of economic, political and social power will be concentrated in the hands of those who are at the "helm". Thus, democracy will turn into an oligarchy.

Michels wrote about this: "He who speaks of organization speaks of the oligarchy." Democracy and large-scale formal organization are not antagonists, but two sides of the same phenomenon: They are not only compatible, but inevitably arise one from the other. Michels comes to this, in the full sense of the historical, generalization by observing the party struggle in the countries of Europe. Where in the late XIX - early XX century. Socialist parties quickly arose, the functionaries of which gradually changed their social status, turning into the ruling elite, which led to the consolidation of posts and privileges, the irremovability of leaders, and their separation from the masses. Charismatic leaders, raising the masses to active political activity, were replaced by bureaucrats, and revolutionaries and enthusiasts were replaced by conservatives and opportunists.

Individuals, Michels noted, occupy leadership positions because of their own unusual political qualities: they know how to achieve their goals and convince others of their importance. Having once obtained a high post, they constantly increase their prestige, power and influence. Thanks to this, they are able to control the flow of organizational information, directing them in a beneficial direction for themselves. Leaders have an exaggerated motivation to maintain their own positions; they use all means in order, firstly, to convince other people of the correctness of their own view of things, and secondly, to legitimize it, to make it the norm. Finally, the leaders promote young officials, but always from among their supporters. Thus, two goals are achieved - a mechanism for the reproduction of personnel is created and the theoretical doctrine of the leader is constantly strengthened.

The masses are gradually turning into admirers of the leader. Their admiration gives an additional impetus to strengthening his personal power, which is now strong with support from below. Unlike a leader who spends all his time at work, ordinary members of the organization can devote only part of it to it. They trust the leader to make important decisions for them, not only because he knows more than others, but also because he deserves it with his devotion to the common cause. The masses are ready not only to entrust the leader with the solution of political issues, but also to entrust their fate to him.

At one time, M. Weber, with whom Michels was friendly, noticed a similar trend, presenting it, however, in a different way. The movement towards a free society requires the bureaucratization of social institutions. In an industrial society, human freedom directly depends on the bureaucracy, which, on the one hand, "crushes" it under itself, and on the other hand, guarantees its immunity. After all, the most reliable guarantor of human rights is the most bureaucratic system in the world - justice. It is it that controls the most important decisions that break human destinies, protecting them from subjective arbitrariness.

Ultimately, numerous codes of laws, by-laws, endlessly drawn-out paperwork, clarification of the smallest details of the case, compliance with the letter of the law protect a free society. In the same way, the system of free elections is not complete without bureaucratic registration of electors at the place of residence, registration of sheets, and thorough verification.

This is how modern American society appears - the citadel of freedom and bureaucracy at the same time. But if democracy is impossible without a national bureaucracy, then R. Michels's theory needs to be amended to indicate that the principles of organizing a socialist party cannot be generalized to such an extent that they turn into universals that describe any society.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the Michels concept, one of which was formulated by the Russian economist and sociologist R.V. Ryvkin: the stronger the concentration of the will, the larger the apparatus serving it. If one of the many people decides, he definitely needs helpers.

A huge apparatus of assistants is needed in the following cases:

• - if the leader is not distinguished by intellectual abilities, he makes mistakes that must be compensated by assistants;
• - if the leader has chosen mediocre assistants;
• - if - due to duplication, lack of communication - the work is organized incorrectly;
• - if the leader retired from power and delegated decision-making to the apparatus;
• - if the leader practices a bureaucratic management style and needs countless agreements, certificates, documents, etc.;
• - if the leader keeps the “necessary” people in the apparatus, thus obtaining the opportunity to give them special privileges and benefits;
• - if assistants act as conductors of the will of the leader.

Only in the latter case is the so-called "team" formed - a group of like-minded people who work not so much for a fee, but for an idea.

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.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation

Department of Political Science and Political Management

Essay

Iron law of oligarchic tendencies

Completed by: group student

Ismailov Timur Adaladovich

Introduction

In the main work of Robert Michels "On the Sociology of the Party in the Conditions of Modern Democracy. A Study of Oligarchic Tendencies Operating in the Life of Groups", which after its publication was recognized as a classic and caused lengthy discussions for a long time, the so-called "iron law of oligarchic tendencies" was developed. ", acting, according to Michels, in all organizations, including parties.

Robert Michels (1876-1936) - one of the leading sociologists of the first half of the 20th century; born in Cologne, taught in Germany, USA, Switzerland, Italy. Author of the books The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie in the Italian Socialist Movement (1908), Socialism and Fascism in Italy (1925), The Regrouping of the Ruling Classes after the War (1934) and others.

The mass is the basis for the exploitation of the oligarchic minority

Based on the study of the activities of political parties in Europe and their dependence on the authorities, Robert Michels wrote his main work: the book “Sociology of the Political Party in the Conditions of Modern Democracy”, where he formulated the “iron law of the oligarchy”, according to which “direct domination of the masses is technically impossible”, and therefore any social organization - even if it begins with democracy - inevitably degenerates into the power of a few chosen ones - an oligarchy. and that the presence of such a class is a "permanent factor in social evolution".

He sympathetically quotes Rousseau's idea that the mass, by delegating its sovereignty, ceases to be sovereign. For him to represent ... means to pass off an individual will as a mass one. From this follows the most important starting point of his reasoning: “The mass is never ready for domination, but each individual entering into it is capable of this if he possesses the positive or negative qualities necessary for this in order to rise above it and advance into leaders.” Even the most classless (if any) collectivist society of the future needs an elite.

Michels was convinced that the majority of mankind would never be capable of self-government, even if the discontented masses ever managed to deprive the ruling class of its power. And all because sooner or later, among the masses themselves, a new organized minority will necessarily appear, which will take over the functions of the ruling class. And he draws a global conclusion: "the ruling class is the only factor that has enduring significance in world history." This is pure elitism, and the author is a staunch elitist.

1. "The iron law of oligarchic tendencies"

michels oligarchy sociology democracy

The fame of Michels is also associated with the “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” formulated by him. The essence of the law: in order to preserve itself and achieve a certain stability, democracy is forced to create an organization, and this is connected with the selection of an elite - an active minority, in which the masses have to trust due to the impossibility of its direct control over this minority. Therefore, democracy inevitably turns into an oligarchy, and people, making a social revolution, run away from Scylla to get to Charybdis.

Thus, democracy faces an "irresolvable contradiction": firstly, it is "alien to human nature" and, secondly, "it inevitably contains an oligarchic core."

As a socialist, Michels was concerned that the liberal and socialist parties of Europe, despite the slogans of supporting the widest participation of the masses in political life, in reality depended on the will of a handful of "leaders" to the same extent as the conservative parties. He came to the conclusion that the desire for oligarchy lies in the very nature of social organization. "When we say 'organisation', we say 'oligarchy'," Michels wrote.

Michels considered the reasons for the existence of this law to be the objective need for leadership, the desire of leaders to put their own interests at the forefront, the trust of the crowd in leaders and the general passivity of the masses.

It follows from the iron law of the oligarchy that democratic government is impossible in any large communities of individuals. The larger the organization, the fewer elements of democracy in it and the more elements of oligarchy. For this reason, Michels moved away from socialism and began to support Mussolini, considering the oligarchic management not only not vicious, but even beneficial for society as a whole.

Michels, insisting on the great importance of the organization, noting that it is politically necessary to overcome the disorganization of forces, on the other hand argues that any organization - be it a state, trade unions or a political party - leads to the emergence of an oligarchy and the undermining of democracy. He formulates the so-called "iron law of the oligarchy."

"Iron Law of the Oligarchy"

A) the term "oligarchization"

The essence of the law lies in the thesis that in any organization the dominance of the ruling elite, the power of the few, the elected, is inevitably established. “It is the organization that generates the power of elected persons over voters who have received a mandate over those who have given a mandate. Whoever says organization, says oligarchy"

At first, in relation to their leaders, the mass of party members is omnipotent. Subsequently, due to the increasing complexity of tasks and the requirement for extensive special knowledge and oratory talent, it is considered more unacceptable to entrust delegation, for the effective use of which personal inclinations are needed. This leads to the creation of a caste of professional politicians. Michels notes that for those who are going to become professional politicians, special benefits are being introduced that apply to the whole family.

J. Linz identifies 10 meanings of the term “oligarchization” in the works of Michels:

1) the emergence of leadership,

2) the emergence of professional leadership and its organization,

3) the formation of a bureaucracy, that is, a paid appointed apparatus,

4) centralization of power,

5) reorientation of goals from final to current,

6) strengthening of the ideological regime,

7) the growing difference between the interests and ideological position of the leaders and party members with the predominance of the interests and ideological positions of the leaders,

8) reducing the role of party members in decision-making,

9) co-opting the leaders of the party opposition into the ranks of the existing leadership,

10) the orientation of the party towards the support of all voters, and not just its own class.

B) the development of democracy into an oligarchy

Democracy usually develops into an oligarchy for the following reasons:

1) technical; for example, a large organization makes it impossible for all members to participate in specific issues.

2) psychological; “The apathy of the masses, their need for leadership, has as its complement the natural greed for power in the leaders.”

According to Michels, democracy is the worst order. Marxist theory, according to Michels, identifies the state with the ruling class, but even a new classless society needs an elite, since a wide layer of bureaucracy is needed to manage.

Managing gigantic capital gives you as much power as owning your own. Here there is a danger that the ruling will want to transfer part of these funds by inheritance. This is how a dictatorship arises, which essentially does not differ from the dictatorship of a group of oligarchs. The concept of dictatorship is opposite to the concept of democracy. Thus the social revolution turns into a demagogic oligarchy acting under the guise of equality. In this way, Michels proves that the existence of democracy is impossible in principle and that the “iron law of the oligarchy” is a regularity in the development of any organization.

Michels examines the problems of relations between leaders and the masses, the discrepancy between revolutionary ideals and the reformist practice of leaders who manipulate the masses for practical purposes, and sometimes compromise with the ruling elite, and concludes that these phenomena are based on the "iron law of the oligarchy", which comes into conflict with democratic ideals and hinders their implementation.

An analysis of the complex of tendencies hindering the implementation of democracy reveals three groups of tendencies related 1) to human nature, 2) to the essence of political struggle, and 3) to the nature of the organization as such. All these tendencies contribute to the inevitable transformation of democracy into an oligarchy.

In the 19th century along with the individual and the state, a new element of social life appeared in the person of the political party. If the history of almost every European party is well known, then the analysis of the nature of the party has not yet been studied enough. Turning to this issue, the author points out that democracy, as a political phenomenon and as a theoretical direction, is experiencing a crisis associated not so much with external obstacles as with its own nature.

C) aristocracy and democracy

Before turning to this problem, Michels analyzes the concept of aristocracy and democracy in contemporary reality and the methods of political parties, regardless of their political orientation.

If the theoretical principles of monarchical government on the one hand, democratic - on the other, are sharply opposed to each other, then in practice these principles acquire such elasticity that the forms of domination in both cases often converge. The aristocratic principle, in its extreme degree, has been destroyed under the onslaught of democratic forces and is being modified in the most diverse ways both in the state system and in party life, sometimes taking on the guise of democracy and even revolutionism in order to thereby gain support among the masses of the people.

In this regard, the question is raised as to what should be understood by revolution and counter-revolution. If historically the liberation struggle of social strata is usually associated with revolution, then logically this concept is based on a violent fundamental transformation of the structure of society, regardless of which class and by what methods this transformation is carried out. Revolutionary, therefore, can be considered any class that directs its actions to a radical change in existing conditions, whether with weapons in hand, or with the help of new laws or new methods in the economy. From this point of view, the concepts of revolutionary and reactionary (as opposed to conservative), revolution and counter-revolution lose their antagonism. From this, the conclusion is drawn (in which the influence of the sociologist Max Weber is undoubtedly felt) that in the analysis of such complex phenomena, unambiguous definitions should be avoided in every possible way, and even more so, moral ideas should be associated with them. Value judgments can be useful in political struggle and even serve moral purposes, but they are generally not applicable to the definition of historical development trends.

In the course of the political struggle, conservative parties began to seek the support of the broad masses of the people, and in some cases even the revolutionary proletariat, promising to protect it from the exploitation of the capitalists associated with democratic parties and to expand the privileges of the trade unions. So, in England during the elections of 1910 and 1924. both the conservative and the liberal parties essentially appealed to the proletariat, one proclaiming democratic ideas and calling for social reforms, the other depicting the miserable existence of workers in a capitalist society. Both of these parties promised more than they could fulfill, but at the same time they admitted in their agitation that they considered the workers to be the decisive force in the political struggle. Democratic slogans and demagogic methods are a necessary means of obtaining a majority of parliamentary seats.

As for the liberal parties, while using the masses of the people for their own purposes, they are by no means inclined to rely entirely on them. Even the creators of the American constitution were afraid of the excessive influence of the masses and called for limiting their influence on the legislative and executive authorities. Certain features of the aristocratic worldview, which find their expression in the fear of the growth of popular representation, are certainly inherent in the bourgeois liberal parties. The conclusion involuntarily suggests itself that in modern reality aristocratic parties tend to adopt democratic forms, while the content of the politics of democratic parties is essentially aristocratic. In one case, the aristocracy assumes a democratic form, in the other, democracy is an aristocratic consciousness.

In conservative parties, outside of election campaigns, tendencies towards oligarchy are evident. In liberal parties, however, an external democratic form can easily mislead the superficial observer. Therefore, it is especially important to reveal here, too, the presence of a tendency towards oligarchy, characteristic of any organization, including Social Democratic revolutionary workers' parties, the presence of oligarchic features immanent in any purposeful organization.

In an unbiased analysis of the question why the same features appear in the parties themselves fighting against the oligarchy, the author sees one of the essential tasks of his work.

If socio-economic conditions hinder the creation of an ideal democracy at this stage, then it is interesting to reveal to what extent in the modern social order, among those elements that seek to break it and build a new society, there are forces capable of, if not realizing ideal democracy, then even get close to her.

Ethical motives have become an indispensable attribute of political struggle. All parties, regardless of their real goals, act on behalf of the entire people, declare themselves to be the spokesman of their will, and call for the creation of a just society. An example is the slogans of the young French bourgeoisie in its struggle against the aristocracy and the church. However, it created a well-functioning republic, not a democracy. History knows revolutions, but by no means democracies. If the leaders of the socialist parties speak of the class character of their party, they invariably add that its interests coincide with the interests of the entire people. In his analysis of the party as an organization, which, by its very nature, has the features of an oligarchy, Michels proceeds from the fact that the organization as such, of course, necessary condition the existence of democracy. Each class that makes its demands on society needs organization. It is the organization that is the weapon of the weak in their struggle against the strong. Only it creates the solidarity of the proletarians, thanks to it they acquire the capacity for political resistance and social dignity. Thus, the principle of organization can be considered an indispensable condition for the struggle of the masses. However, this politically necessary condition is also fraught with danger, which manifests itself in the inevitable degeneration into an oligarchy. The point is that the very structure of the organization radically changes the attitude of the leader towards the masses and creates within the party (or trade union) a division into a leading minority and a led majority. And if at first the rights and privileges are extended to an ever larger circle of people, then in the further development of democracy there is a reverse movement, which allows us to come to the following conclusion: along with the growth of the organization, the power of the leaders grows.

Before proceeding to characterize the cause of this phenomenon, Michels dwells on the question of the impossibility of direct domination of the masses, i.e. direct expression and implementation of the will of the people.

Considering a number of attempts to transfer decision-making to the people, Michels points out that the crowd, subject to the laws of mass psychology, is more influenced by skillful speakers who subordinate it to their will, loses a sense of responsibility and easily makes rash decisions.

However, even this circumstance is not the decisive argument testifying to the impossibility of popular sovereignty; such is the technical unacceptability of this procedure. Without representation, without discussing serious issues by a narrow circle of people, neither the functioning of the state machine nor the functioning of the party is technically possible.

Since the beginning of the XX century. an indispensable requirement for occupying the post of a functionary, and then the leader of the party, is a certain level of education and political training. There is a layer of professional politicians, functionaries who have received appropriate training and have found the skills for political activity. It is quite obvious that this path leads to the creation of an elite within the working class. All the rights of the masses are now delegated to the leader, freed from their control. Mandates and instructions proved inappropriate, as they bound the will of the delegate and prevented him from making decisions in a changing situation.

A modern party is, in the political sense of the word, a militant organization; therefore, the speed and effectiveness of its actions depend on unconditional adherence to the laws of tactics, i.e. the ability to quickly respond to the demands of the moment and ensure the exact execution of the task. This, in turn, inevitably leads to an oligarchic, centralized structure.

D) the power of the party leadership

Most of the work of R. Michels is devoted to the problem of the power of the party leadership, the identification of technical, psychological, intellectual causes of its occurrence. If the administrative and technical conditions are directly related to the growth of the organization, then the psychological moments stem from the established tradition, from the leader's confidence in his indispensability, which allows him to threaten resignation at the slightest doubt in his confidence. On the other hand, a significant role is played by the indifference of most members of the party (and also the trade union) to everyday issues, the solution of which they willingly leave to the board, as well as the need to submit to the strong will of the leader. This property, which is generally inherent in all peoples, varies depending on national characteristics and finds its highest expression in the character of the Germans, including the German workers (a certain deviation is observed among the inhabitants of the Rhine region). Here are all the elements necessary for the emergence of unlimited power of the leader, such as a tendency to submission, discipline, faith in infallibility, in authority.

The other side of faith in the leader is passivity and the inability to continue the initiated action - a strike or a demonstration, as soon as the government manages to eliminate the leader. The absence of the initiative of the masses forces the holders of power in the Democratic Party to continuously carry out intense agitation and at the same time carry out a number of various functions. In response to this, the masses of the rank and file members of the party experience a feeling of gratitude and reverence for the person to whom they have delegated power. An example is the attitude towards Garibaldi in Italy, towards Bebel in Germany. The enthusiastic reception given to Lassalle (politician, philosopher and lawyer) by the inhabitants of the Rhine region gave Bismarck a reason to say that he does not undertake to say whether the history of the German Empire will end with the Hohenzollern dynasty or the Lassalle dynasty.

In every developed organization, be it a democratic state, a political party or a workers' union, differentiation inevitably arises. The more ramified the apparatus becomes, the more the power of the people is relegated to the background, the place of which is now passing to committees that consider all important questions. A strong organization needs a strong leader, a professional politician.

Each large party apparatus must have at its disposal a certain number of people who will carry out its policy on the basis of the powers given to them. As the tasks become more complex, the control established by the party program of the rank and file of the leaders over the actions of the leaders becomes a fiction. The complex structure of the party apparatus leads to the division of competence, to the creation of many bureaucratic instances and the conditions for the correct functioning of the party machine.

It is quite obvious that the bureaucratic character of party organization is the result of practical necessity and the inevitable product of the very principle of organization. With the growth of party bureaucratization, two important principles of the socialist program necessarily lose their significance: a proper understanding of the ideal goals in the future, the goals of socialist culture, and an understanding of its national diversity. The main mechanism becomes the transformation of people into professional politicians, which increases the difference in the intellectual level between the leading figures of the party and its ordinary members. The experience of history shows that for the domination of the minority over the majority, in addition to economic superiority and the influence of traditions, the superiority of the intellect is necessary.

The oligarchic properties of the organization are exacerbated by psychological causes inherent in human nature. Although on the whole the moral level of the leaders of the workers' parties is higher than that of the leaders of other parties, nevertheless their very position cannot but have an unfavorable effect on them. If at an early stage of their activity leaders are usually guided not by personal interests, but by the cause of the party, then the logic of things, as a rule, develops skepticism and indifference in them. Then their further connection with the party is based on purely economic considerations, since a return to the former profession is impossible both for people from the bourgeoisie and for people from the working environment.

After Marx, the goal of the Social Democratic Party of Germany is not the destruction of the existing state system, but the penetration of party members into state bodies.

The revolutionary party does not oppose the bourgeois parties, but competes with them in its quest for power.

Under these conditions, when the interests of the party as an organization become an end in itself, the party breaks away from the class it represents.

There is no contradiction between the doctrine of the class struggle and the doctrine according to which the class struggle at each of its decisive stages ends with the creation of an oligarchy, says Michels. History shows that any popular movement ultimately comes down to the fact that its most prominent representatives gradually break away from the masses and are absorbed into a new political class. The masses only change leaders.

Leaders are a necessary attribute of social life. Leaving aside the qualitative assessment of this phenomenon, it should be pointed out with all decisiveness that it is not identical with the basic principles of democracy. The oligarchic structure of the organization is increasingly detached from its democratic basis.

The basic question of politics as a science is: what degree of democracy is possible and feasible at the moment? It is completely unscientific to assume that after the socialists come to power, it will be easy to achieve, with the help of insignificant control, the identification of the interests of the leader and the masses.

The unpreparedness of the masses for solving social and political problems cannot be easily eliminated; the possibility of increasing their competence is opposed by the growing complexity of social life.

Conclusion

The task of the work, writes Michels in conclusion, was to point out the likelihood of pessimism in the question of the possibility of realizing the democratic ideal, its real significance, and also

to highlight a number of sociological trends that oppose the establishment of genuine democracy, especially socialism.

Nevertheless, it should be remembered that a genuinely democratic and revolutionary proletarian movement can contribute to the weakening of oligarchic tendencies, for democracy contains the principle of awakening the critical faculty.

With the improvement of material conditions and the growth of education, this ability will increase in the working environment.

Consequently, the fight against oligarchic tendencies in the labor movement must go in the field of social pedagogy.

The historical inevitability of the oligarchy does not eliminate the necessity of the struggle of the proletariat against it and faith in the superiority of democracy over any other state system.

Bibliography

1) "Sociology of a political party in a modern democracy."

R. Michels

2) Ashin G.K., Okhotsky E.V., Course of elitology, M., Sportacadempress, 1999, p. 41-42

3) History of political and legal doctrines: a textbook edited by O.E. Leist

4) Sociology of political relations. M., 1979.

5) Bourgeois sociology at the end of the 20th century, edited by V.N. Ivanova

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

Description of the views on the essence, functions and purpose of the political elite of Robert Michels - historian, economist and sociologist. Fundamentals of the theory of oligarchy - true democracy always bears in itself the germ of oligarchy. The role of parties in the formation of the elite.

abstract, added 01/10/2011


History and prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of elites. Description of the ideas and views of G. Mosca - an Italian researcher, one of the founders of political science. The essence of the theory of elites. Ideas of Vilfredo Pareto. The theory of oligarchy and understanding of the elite by Robert Michels.

abstract, added 09/28/2014


The study of the essence and basic principles of democracy. The study of democratization indices as a tool for political assessment of the level of democracy in the Russian Federation. Philip Cutwright's Political Development Index. Identification of trends in the transformation of political regimes.

term paper, added 07/07/2015


The definition of the elite as a social dominant, carrying out the functions of managing socio-cultural development. Elitarism and egalitarianism as the main directions for solving the problem of social inequality. Theories of oligarchy by Robert Michels, Pareto and Mosca.

abstract, added 07/24/2011


General analysis Russian electoral technologies as a political phenomenon. A comprehensive description of the theoretical and practical foundations of political marketing in Russia. Identification of features and trends in the development of Russian electoral technologies.

term paper, added 07/27/2011


The concept of democracy as a political and legal phenomenon associated with the functioning of public authority, its concepts and features. Identification of non-democratic tendencies in the political regime of modern Russia by comparing the ideal with reality.

abstract, added 12/23/2014


Definition of the essence, principles, functions and institutions of democracy. Consideration of the features of parliamentary democracy. Assessment of the main characteristics of parliamentary democracy in Germany, Italy and the USA; highlighting common and different characteristics of this analysis.

term paper, added 12/29/2014


Formation of modern political parties: typology, signs and functions. Formation of civil thought in accordance with the party ideology. The role of pressure groups in society. Political parties of Ukraine. Party system as an element of democracy.

abstract, added 02/07/2010


The study of the concept of democracy, a political regime in which the people are the only legitimate source of power. Characterization of the features and basic principles of oligarchic, egalitarian, socialist, liberal and imitation democracy.

abstract, added 03/26/2012


The concept, essence and basic principles of democracy. Liberal, pluralistic and collectivist concepts of democracy. Alternative directions for the formation of democracy as ideas and practices. Problems, advantages and disadvantages of modern democracy.

The historian and sociologist, revered in the West, Roberto Michels (1876-1936), whose analysis of the works of without fail included in political science courses, in the work "Sociology of Political Parties in a Modern Democracy" (1911) put forward the so-called. "the iron law of oligarchic tendencies", more commonly known as the "iron law of the oligarchy".

The main meaning of this law is that the functioning of democracy is strictly limited by the need to create an organization based on an “active minority” (elite), since “direct domination of the masses is technically impossible” and leads to the death of democracy. “It is the organization that causes the rise of the domination of those who have been chosen over those who have chosen ... representatives over those whom they represent. Who says "organization" - he says "oligarchy".

Roberto Michels not only justified the inability of the majority to self-government, but also actively sympathized with fascism. In 1928, the scientist joined the Fascist Party in Italy. By personal order of Mussolini, he was appointed to the post of professor at the University of Perugia and became one of the organizers of the "fascist faculties" of political science to create a "new political thinking" and train "professional fascist cadres."

Recall the works of Roberto Michels, "theoretician of political science recognized in the West" (2), who formulated the "iron law of the oligarchy", I was forced by a political performance called "US Technical Default". The dispute between the American Republicans and Democrats around raising the US national debt ceiling was broadcast to the whole world. Changes by the international rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) of the forecast for the sovereign rating of the United States from AAA to AA +, i.e. from stable to negative, led not only to a deterioration in the forecasts for the ratings of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) and The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of New York. This was followed by an avalanche-like collapse of world stock exchanges, a fall in oil prices, an increase in the cost of precious metals. At the suggestion of Beijing, they again started talking about replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency. All this together creates unpredictable for the consequences of most of the world's economies "tied" to the dollar.According to the official agency of the Chinese government "Xinhua", "the loss of the United States of its rating" 3A "was a landmark event of global significance, since its huge real impact was compounded by a huge psychological impact, and this sign has both historical and symbolic significance” (3).

At the same time, it follows from the words of Alexei Novikov, head of the S&P representative office in Russia, that the negative forecast was, in fact, used as a way to put pressure on the White House. “We (S&P. - E.P.) explained that if we see the inability of the two major political parties in Congress to agree on a strategic medium-term and long-term debt policy and measures to reduce the deficit in the near future, we will be forced to reduce the rating to the level of “AA +” . Our opinion was formed due to the fact that the budget process, which, in fact, is a political process, has reached an impasse. And even the compromise that was reached on the issue of the "ceiling" of the national debt was completely technical. It was fundamental only from the point of view that the country should have the legal ability to pay its debts. That is, we are not talking about the ability to pay, but specifically about the legal possibility to do this ... If this can be done, then we will revise both the forecast and, possibly, the rating upwards” (4). In other words, the S&P forecast was a method of influencing certain individuals in the US government.

It is obvious even to non-specialists that a rating is a very narrow financial instrument for measuring credit risk. This is only an estimate of the probability of repaying the debt on time and in full. The rating does not assess the health of the United States economy. It is precisely the duty of the government itself. And although this debt is very large, the economy of the whole country cannot be assessed only by the rating. At the same time, the AA+ rating is one of the highest. Therefore, the risk of non-repayment of public debt by the United States remains minimal. There are many countries with very powerful and good economies that rank lower than the States.

In addition, the S&P verdict procedure itself is very closed. Analysts prepare a report and submit it to the rating committee, which includes seven to nine people. The decision on this or that level of the rating is made by voting by a qualified majority. An interesting thing turns out - from the opinion, even if it is very competent, of seven or nine people, the entire world economy is in a fever! It is quite obvious that there are serious corporate interests behind this. Against the background of the next financial crisis, let's try to figure out who really controls America, who makes decisions that are vital for this country, and in the context of globalization, the world.

The 20th President of the United States, James Garfield, who died under very strange circumstances in 1881, formulated a position that, most likely, cost him his life: "He who controls the nation's money supply determines its fate." And although today we will not hear such confessions from the lips of public politicians, the nature of American "democracy" has not changed - economic interests determine the nature of the political regime. And here we come to the most important thing: to find out whose interests are taken into account when making political decisions.

American sociologist, historian, Doctor of Philosophy of Yale University Michael Parenti (b. 1933), who studied the US political system for many years, came to an unambiguous conclusion: America is ruled by plutocracy (5). And he is far from alone in this belief. As you know, plutocracy (Greek from plútos - wealth and krátos - strength, power) is the power of the rich, the dominance of money. With regard to the US political system, plutocracy should be understood as a political system in which, in fact (regardless of formal democratic norms), political power belongs to the richest.

By the way, one of the confirmations of this is the official data of the US Census Bureau for 2010 (6). So, by the end of 2010, the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States reached a record high in history. The top 20% of Americans earned almost half of all income in the country last year, which is 14.5 times the amount received by the bottom 20%. The trend towards stratification of American society has steadily existed over the past 30 years, but the crisis has accelerated it significantly - the rich are now getting richer faster, and the poor are getting poorer faster. Today, 43 million people, or 14.3% of US citizens, live below the poverty line. The number of beggars only for Last year increased by four million in the United States. By American standards, one in seven Americans eke out a beggarly existence. True, the poverty level in the United States is several times higher than in Russia and is set at $21,954 for a family of four. per year, i.e. an average of $500 per person per month. However, for America, this is really very little. But 30 years ago, in 1968, the richest 20% of US residents earned only 7.69 times the same share of the poorest. The wages of a top manager and an ordinary worker at a machine tool did not differ so much in those days.

According to the laws of development of large social systems, none of them is reproduced and is not preserved by itself. Continuous efforts are needed to reproduce/develop the existing economic order. Only those who control the wealth of society, and have the opportunity to seriously influence politics in a variety of ways. For example, by increasing the number of jobs or reducing investment in the economy, through crises of overproduction or increasing the money supply. They directly influence the electoral process through their generous donations to election campaigns candidates. They own or control public institutions, foundations, research organizations and think tanks, the publication of books and the media through the guardianship system, thus influencing the ideology of society, its value system and the content of information flows in it.

By the way, the creation of the US Federal Reserve System in 1913 became possible only thanks to a series of crises inspired by large banking families. A year after another crisis in 1907, the "organizer" of which is considered to be John Morgan, the US Congress created the National Monetary Commission to find out the cause of the instability of the country's banking system. As a result of the commission's activities, in close cooperation with a member of the Rothschild clan - Paul Warburg - and under the direct patronage of President Woodrow Wilson, on December 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act came into force. The gratitude of the bankers to the then president was truly royal. In 1934, the largest denomination was printed - $ 100,000. In fact, it was a gold certificate and was intended for interbank settlements within the Fed. The 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, looked from the banknote.

Since the creation of the Fed, the entire money supply of America has been controlled by a private structure, because Fed shareholders - commercial banks. The real owners of the Fed are not known to us individuals, and not at all a state, not the United States of America. Even on the official website of the Fed, you will read information about its private nature: the Fed is a "mixture of public and private elements." Another feature of the Fed is its independence, which is presented as a great advantage: the Fed is “an independent financial body created to perform the functions of the Central Bank and exercise centralized control over the US commercial banking system” (7). The question is: from whom is the Fed independent? From the government, the president, i.e. from the state, which means that the large shareholders of the Fed can dictate terms to representatives of the highest state power, determine state policy.

Of course, not all rich people are involved in the process of running the state. America's ruling class, or plutocracy, is made up of active members of the property-owning class. It is enough to look at surname list representatives of the American establishment to understand that from the very beginning of the formation of the United States to the present, all the leading leadership positions in it, including the positions of president, vice president, members of the government and head of the Supreme Court, were occupied predominantly by people from wealthy families. Most of the other positions were held by people from the upper middle class (comparatively successful businessmen, owners of large commercial firms, etc.). In other words, the combination of power and money from the very beginning of the formation of the American state was decisive (later cultural and information resources were added to them).

Most of the US legislative and executive bodies come to power from the boards of directors of large corporations, well-known law firms, Wall Street banks, to a lesser extent - from the military, university elites, think tanks, various foundations and academia. More than a third of them subsequently go to elite universities, the so-called. "Ivy League" (privileged universities of the northeastern United States).

There are close financial and social ties between the ruling and business elites. Many of these people went to the same educational institutions, worked in the same companies, are cross-married and spend vacations together. For example, the decision to create the FRS was made on Jekyll Island (Georgia), which in 1886 was bought by a group of millionaires and turned into a private club. Until 1942, families gathered there, in whose hands a sixth of the planet's money was concentrated - Astors, Vanderbilts, Morgans, Pulitzers, Goulds, Warburgs, etc. (8) Or another example. For almost a century, members of the prestigious public and financial elites have been gathering in the Bohemian Grove every summer. This is a luxury vacation spot owned by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco. The guest list includes all US Presidents from the Republican Party and some from the Democratic Party, many senior White House officials, as well as directors and senior executives of large corporations and financial institutions. During such meetings, information is exchanged and efforts are coordinated, decisions are made regarding which candidates should be supported and for which government posts, what political line to pursue at home and abroad, how to reduce the activity of the popular masses and increase profits, how to regulate the amount of money in circulation, the situation in the markets, how to maintain public order. When rich people interact or even argue, they become even richer.

However, the decisive factor is not belonging to the class of owners, but the class interests they serve. A wealthy person whose views do not fit in with the ideology of his class, most likely, will not be invited to a position of power or to a closed club in which strategic decisions are made. On the contrary, people who don't particularly stand out for their data, such as Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, rise to the top, demonstrating devotion to the interests of the super-rich.

As for the formally open groups, one of the most famous is the Council for international relations(SMO), created in 1918-1921. and consisting of prominent figures from the world of finance, industry and government circles. The Council has about 1,450 members, almost half of whom come from families with inherited wealth, as mentioned in the Social Register(11). About 60% of the Council's members are corporate lawyers, executives or bankers, and include representatives of the Rockefeller, Morgan and Du Pont groups. The private companies that had the most Board members were Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chase Manhattan Bank, Citibank and IBM. Over the past decades, the Council has included US presidents, secretaries of state, defense secretaries and other members of the White House cabinet, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directors of the CIA, federal judges, Fed officials, dozens of US ambassadors, key members of Congress, top executives and directors of almost all major banks and leading corporations, college and university presidents, publishers, editors, and opinion makers from every major US media outlet. Many of the most influential members of the CFR have repeatedly moved from business and universities to government and back again.

The CMO developed the Marshall Plan, the structure of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Council advocated the creation of a US strategic nuclear arsenal, global intervention in the affairs of other states, which resulted in World War II, military operations in Guatemala, Korea, Vietnam, drawing the USSR into an armed conflict in Afghanistan, unleashing the Balkan and Middle East wars. It was the CFR that recommended establishing diplomatic relations with China in 1979 and intensifying the arms race in 1980. And most importantly, all these proposals have always been accepted by the White House for execution, regardless of who at that time was the owner of the Oval Office.

Some members of the CFR are simultaneously members of the Bilderberg and Rome clubs, the Trilateral Commission (TC). Regardless of who exactly and when created such closed societies, their main goal is to coordinate the actions of the most influential families and protect international capital. This principle was fixed back in 1981 by one of the CFR members, a well-known political scientist, whose works are also “must be studied”, Samuel Huntington: “... while representatives of states are busy with endless disputes at UN conferences and councils ... agents of transnational organizations on all continents are busy weaving a web that tightly binds the world” (12). It is woven not in the interests of states, but in the interests of the very "global spider" that ignores the borders between states.

Another organization of the American ruling class - the US plutocracy, according to M. Parenti, is the Economic Development Assistance Committee (CED), which consists of about 200 leaders of large businesses. No less significant for setting the political agenda is the Business Council, which consists of representatives from companies such as Morgan Guaranty Trust, General Electric, Generals Motors, and others. The 154 members of this Council, whose names are listed in the Who is who in America directory, XXI century together held 730 directorships in 435 banks and corporations, as well as 49 boards of trustees (13) (sic!). These structures develop principles for solving a number of problems of domestic and foreign policy, then the principles developed by them are embodied with amazing invariability in the policy of the US government.

It is obvious that the influence of these organizations stems from the enormous economic power wielded by the individuals who belong to them. The US government does not make decisions developed in private structures because it is under some unprecedented pressure. Everything is much easier. The US government consists of members of such Councils, Committees, or persons engaged by them. For example, President Gerald R. Ford appointed 14 CFR members to positions in his administration; 17 senior officials in Jimmy Carter's administration, including himself, were from TC. Ronald Reagan's government included the top executives of Wall Street investment firms and directors of New York banks, at least a dozen of whom were in the CFR, as well as thirty-one of his top advisers. Most of the members of George W. Bush's cabinet came from corporate executive positions who were also CFR and TC members, and President Bush himself was a member of the Trilateral Commission in the past.

Bill Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, was a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Club, and his candidacy for the presidency of the United States was determined precisely at a meeting of the latter in 1991 in the presence of David Rockefeller. Then Clinton arranged other brides. “At a private meeting in New York in June 1991, several top Wall Street administrators with ties to the Democratic Party had a series of conversations with presidential hopefuls. Such preliminary talks one of their organizers called an "elegant cattle show." They questioned Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, who "impressed them with his position on free trade and free markets." It was only after the decision of the bankers that Bill Clinton was announced in the media as the leading Democratic presidential candidate” (14).

Power and money are not just a single entity in the United States. Here power is a direct derivative of money. In the US, even a hint of the "equidistance" of politics from business can cost lives. The experience of four assassinated US presidents - Abraham Lincoln (1865), James Garfield (1881), William McKinley (1901) and John F. Kennedy (1963) - forever taught politicians to do the will of the plutocracy. All these deaths were most closely connected with the attempt of the state (in the person of the president) to establish control over the money supply ... (15).

Today, the President of the United States is the "highest commercial agent of the American system" (M. Parenti), because. regardless of whether he is a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, the president is always inclined to identify oligarchic interests with the interests of the entire nation. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples. The main obligation of US presidents abroad is not loyalty to democracy - that's for fools - but to protect the interests of capital and free market ideas. "US interest" is to protect the foreign investment of giant US corporations at all costs. Therefore, when it is beneficial to capital, US presidents support autocracies in Latin America, in the Near and Middle East, in Asia; declare "crusades" against popular governments seeking an alternative to free market corporatism, as happened in Chile, Nicaragua, South Yemen, Indonesia, East Timor, Mozambique and Yugoslavia; conduct "axis of evil"; initiate military incursions, etc.

The loyalty of American presidents and other top political figures is well paid not only while they are in office, but also after leaving the White House. For example, according to the Administration of the President of the United States, in 2009, White House employees earned almost $38.8 million for 469 people. President Obama himself officially receives $400,000 a year, almost four times the official income of Dmitry Medvedev. Ex-presidents continue to feed well from the "state pie". Former presidents - Carter and Bush - both multimillionaires receive from 500,000 to 700,000 annual pensions, have their own office, staff, travel expenses, and constant protection from the secret service of the US Department of the Treasury, which costs five million annually for each .dollars Some former presidents receive other income and privileges. In particular, a certain group of private individuals who called themselves "independent rich" bought for R. Reagan a house worth $ 2.5 million in the fashionable Bel Air district in California.

However, not only the economic power of large and influential families provides them with the opportunity to rule America. Understanding the essence of the American system is impossible without looking at the broader social context in which it exists, shaped in turn by the media, film, and entertainment industries.

It is unlikely that anyone will argue with the fact that the power of the world's media, a significant part of which lives in the United States, is enormous. “No king or pope of past centuries, no conqueror or prophet, has ever wielded a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control the American media and entertainment today. Their power is not distant and impersonal: it invades every American home, imposing its will almost from the moment of human awakening. It is this power that shapes and molds the consciousness of literally every American citizen, young or old, simple-minded or seasoned. The media and entertainment give us an image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Practically everything we know - or think we know - about events outside our own place of residence or circle of close acquaintances comes to us through our daily newspaper, our weekly magazine, our radio or our television" (16).

The mainstream media (newspapers, magazines, radio, film, and television) are integral components of corporate America. They are highly integrated diversified corporations or diversified companies. According to 2000 data, eight American diversified corporations controlled the vast majority of the national media. For comparison, in 1989 there were 23 such corporations. About 80% of the daily circulation of newspapers in the United States is accounted for by several giant newspaper concerns - Gannett and Knight-Ridder. Moreover, the upward trend in concentration remains unchanged. Today, less than 2 percent of American cities have competing newspapers from other owners. Virtually all magazines are sold in kiosks owned by six major network companies. Eight corporate conglomerates control the vast majority of book sales, and several bookstore chains account for over 70% of book sales. The film industry is also controlled by a handful of companies and banks. The television industry is dominated by four giant networks: ABC, CBS, NBS and Fox.

In other words, the entire audience of American radio listeners is under the control of just a few companies whose policies are determined by big business. For example, NBC is owned by General Electric Corporation, Capital Cities/ABC is owned by Disney, and CBS is owned by Westinghouse Corporation. The Fox radio and television network is owned by right-wing billionaire and media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Banks such as Morgan Guaranty Trust and Citibank are named among the largest shareholders of these radio and television networks. The boards of directors of all the major radio-television networks and publishing houses have representatives of powerful corporations, including IBM, Ford, General Motors and Mobil Oil. Media conglomerates own not only radio and television networks, but also lucrative holdings such as cable television companies, book publishers, magazines, newspapers, film studios, satellite television systems and radio stations (17). Thus, practically the entire media network (a similar situation in advertising and show business) reflects the interests of a very narrow circle of people and is designed to form certain stereotypes of consciousness and behavior.

The technology of manipulating public opinion does not come down to just hushing up certain events and news in the newspapers or to outright propaganda distortion of historical events with the help of television "documentary series". Media masters demonstrate both subtlety and thoroughness in their conduct of the entertainment and news industries. The average American, whose daily consumption of television has become completely unhealthy, has great difficulty distinguishing fictional situations from real ones, if at all. For many, far too many Americans, the real world has already been supplanted by the false reality of the television world. Thus, when a television writer approves/condemns certain ideas and actions through TV characters, he thereby exerts powerful psychological pressure on millions of television viewers. The same is true of news, whether it be television or newspaper. Suffice it to recall the information war waged and continues to be waged by the American media against Serbia, Russia, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

To the colossal role that the media play in American society, one should add the most important ideological function performed by the entire social system, which is also largely subordinated to the interests of the plutocracy. Thus, most universities, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charitable organizations and hospitals are organized on the basis of corporations, i.e. managed by a board of directors or a board of trustees. The board of directors, which decides on all the affairs of this or that institution, usually includes wealthy business people. Their main function is to exercise ideological control over the institution. The management of daily affairs is entrusted to administrators (this may be the headmaster of a school or library, the rector of a university, etc.). The trustees can remove the administrator from office at any time.

True, open conflicts are rare, because. the corporate culture that pervades all social institutions pays well. For example, the president of an average university, with a salary of $200,000 a year, can simultaneously receive up to $100,000 from several corporations for serving as a member of the board of directors. Moreover, the salaries of top administrators are skyrocketing, while student stipends and medical expenses are constantly being cut. (By the way, a similar system is being formed in Russia. For example, the director of the Kurchatov Institute, the rectors of the Higher School of Economics and the Russian State Humanitarian University receive more than 300 thousand rubles a month, while the professorship, which keeps all the work, is content with 15 thousand rubles a month ).

Private firms in America actively encourage gifted professors and teachers; finance groups of scientists working on specific problems and research centers; provide grants and influence recruitment policy, research topics and the content of the disciplines taught. That is, money requires loyalty to the existing system.

Ideological influence is also provided by the system of think tanks (for example, the Heritage Foundation, Freedom House, RAND Corp.) and rating agencies, institutes and universities. They conduct research that concludes that America's main weakness lies in burdensome government regulation and excessive bureaucracy, and the cure for these ailments is to weaken government control and reduce taxes on businesses. Right-wing ideologues, using rich funding, were able to hire and train ideologically committed writers and publicists who infiltrated government departments, became staff members of Congress, news agencies, and established a constant production of materials promoting corporate ideas regarding "free trade" and "free market" . Thus, almost all of the intellectual and cultural institutions in the United States are controlled by the plutocracy, they are all connected to the business system, and they are controlled by groups representing the interests of wealthy corporations. That is why we remember today Roberto Michels with his "iron law of the oligarchy."

Of course, in one article it is impossible to consider in detail the vital activity of that “global spider” that has formed on the body of America. Nevertheless, even from the data that I have given, some conclusions can be drawn. The answer to the question "Who really runs America?" - simple and complex at the same time.

The answer is simple - because we know that the structure that controls the United States of America is a rigid triangle "money - information - power". Each of the sides of this triangle, in turn, has an institutional expression in the largest transnational corporations (which include industrial enterprises, financial capital, the media) and world governance structures - such as CMO, TC, the Bilderberg Club and others like them.

The answer to this question seems difficult because we do not fully know and, perhaps, will never know the names of the real rulers. As they say, “the veil of secrecy forever hides from the eyes of the uninitiated the true motives and mechanisms of cataclysms, which we, not knowing any other definition, call historical events" (18). And although the anonymity of these people gives rise to their impunity, it does not mean their omnipotence. Supranational structures should not be demonized, they should not be feared. They must be studied, since only knowing the enemy well, you can defeat him.

· the dominance of the elite is determined by the impossibility of direct participation of the masses in the management processes and control on their part;

· the organization of political interactions, including mechanisms for representing the interests of citizens, inevitably puts forward a minority to leadership positions;

· The natural dynamics of organizational processes inevitably leads to the degeneration of the ruling groups into oligarchic associations.

Political elite- this is an internally differentiated, heterogeneous, but relatively integrated group of persons (or a set of groups) that make up the minority of society, possessing the qualities of leadership and prepared to perform managerial functions, occupying leadership positions in public institutions and (or) directly influencing the adoption of power decisions in society. (textbook Solovyov)

Elite - has exceptional qualities and is aware of its superiority and dominates the rest of society.

Elite Functions:

1. Setting and maintaining norms and models in society

2. Determining directions and priorities for development

3. Shaping public opinion

4. Recruitment

The creators of the concept of the elite are Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels, theorists of the Italian school of political sociology. The concept is based on the observation real political behavior and interaction of political subjects.

The Doctrine of the "Political Class" G. Mosca

The political class is minority controlling the majority because it organized. The cohesion of this class is achieved through the presence of organization, structure. However, the class is heterogeneous - it consists of a very small group of "higher authorities" and a much larger group of "middle managers".

The development of any society, regardless of the mode of social and political organization, is directed by the ruling class.

The ruling minority differs from the masses in its special qualities. Therefore, access to the political class presupposes that the individual has special qualities and abilities. These qualities are: military prowess, wealth, priesthood (hence the three forms of aristocracy: military, financial and ecclesiastical). The dominant criterion is the ability to manage people.

The elite must be updated. three ways Elite Updates: Inheritance, Choice, and Co-optation(volitional introduction of new members into the elite).

Two tendencies in the development of the ruling class: (1) the desire of its representatives to make their privileges hereditary, (2) the desire of new forces to replace the old. If the first trend prevails (aristocratic), then the elite becomes closed, the society has reduced development opportunities and it stagnates. If the second trend (democratic) dominates, access to the elite does not cause difficulties and rapid renewal takes place, but the danger of instability and political crises is growing. Therefore, Mosca preferred societies where there is a balance of these tendencies.

The effectiveness of the performance of power functions by the ruling class largely depends on its organization. Depending on the principle of transfer of power, there are two types of political governance: autocratic (power is transferred from top to bottom) and liberal (power is delegated from bottom to top). A combination of the two types is possible (eg USA).

Psychological theory of the elite V. Pareto

The main motives of activity and the driving forces of history are psychological incentives - "risidua". They come down to biological instincts, irrational feelings, emotions, and so on. In society, these incentives are clothed in the form of an explanation for illogical behavior - "derivation".

Therefore, Pareto believed that politics is largely a function of psychology.

Elite is a group of individuals who operate from high rates in any area. Those. the elite is defined by its innate psychological properties.

The elite is heterogeneous and consists of two parts: ruling(involved in decision making) and non-ruling(not participating).

The elite is small and holds power over the majority in part force and partly thanks to consent from the population.

Elites tend to decline, while non-elites are capable of producing potentially elite elements. All social transformations are determined by the circulation of elites. The continuous circulation of elites contributes to the balance of the social system to the extent that it provides an influx of the best.

If the elite opposes renewal, it becomes isolated and its replacement takes place in a revolutionary way.

The development of society occurs through a periodic change, circulation of the two main types of elites - “foxes” (flexible leaders using “soft” leadership methods: negotiations, concessions, flattery, persuasion, etc.) and “lions” (tough and decisive rulers, relying primarily on strength).

Michels concept of oligarchy

The reasons for political stratification and the impossibility of democracy lie in the essence of man, the peculiarities of the political struggle and the specifics of the development of organizations. These reasons lead to oligarchy.

The phenomenon of oligarchy is explained psychologically (the psychology of the masses and organizations) and organically (the laws of structures and organizations). Psychological factors play a major role.

Among the groups claiming power within the framework of a parliamentary democracy, those able to secure the support of the organized "masses" are the most effective. But the very principle of organization, necessary for the leadership of the "masses", leads to the emergence of a hierarchy of power headed by the oligarchy.

The organization divides people into a leading minority and a ruled majority. Organizational leaders tend to oppose rank-and-file members by forming closed coalitions. The sovereignty of the “masses” turns out to be illusory. That's how it works" iron law of the oligarchy».

The oligarchic structure is based not only on the desire of the leaders to strengthen their own authority, but also on the inertia of the "masses" and the technical properties of the political organization.

The elite is a product of the national psyche.

There are three elements in the class structure, the interaction of which is determined by the needs of domination: political, economic and intellectual. In different historical conditions, real power becomes a political-economic, political-intellectual or strong-willed political class.

Modern theories elite.

Elitist Approach and Elite Management Theory

The elitist approach continues the classic tradition of analyzing the elite as a relatively cohesive group that performs power functions, while significant attention is paid to the heterogeneity of the elite, its structure and ways of influencing society. For the first time, the management theory of the elite was presented in the work of an American political scientist J. Bernheim"Revolution of managers" (1940). Radical changes in the political class, which he called a revolution, are associated with the emergence of an administrative elite (managers), which pushed the class of capitalist owners. The dominance of managers is due to the need for competent management of technically complex industries. The political dominance of the administrative elite is based not on property or the ability to distribute resources, but on knowledge, education, and professional competence.

American sociologist D. Bell: the concept of "post-industrial society"("The Coming Post-Industrial Society" 1973). The division into managers and managed in the information society occurs on the basis of knowledge and competence. These qualities allow the new intellectual elite to make the greatest contribution to the development of society.

Institutional approach and the theory of elites by R. Mills

Elite as a group of statuses and strategic roles.

In his work “The Power Elite”, R. Mills defined the elite as those “who occupy command posts”. "Command strategic positions in the social structure" are occupied by those who are at the head of social institutions (a set of roles and statuses designed to meet a certain social need). The most significant for society: political, economic, military institutions. Those who head these institutions make up the power elite. Mills: "By the power elite, we mean those political, economic and military circles that, in a complex interweaving of groupings, share the right to make decisions, at least of national importance." Ch.R. Mills (1916 - 1962) showed the existence of ruling elites in the 20th century using the example of American society. The book "The ruling elite" (there is a Russian translation). The states are ruled by a coalition of elites, consisting of three groups: an economic elite, consisting of managers of the largest concerns, closely connected with each other and with the government, plying between the government and firms; political - the executive apparatus, which partially regulates even the activities of legislative bodies; military elite. They form a kind of power cartel. They make decisions in all areas of society. They have the same origin and upbringing, the same worldview, close personal ties.

Robert Dahl- one of the modern classics of political science spoke out against Mills (“Who Rules? Democracy and Power in America”, 1961). He said that in America there is a pluralization of power: there are many unconnected, scattered power groups, and the interests of each of them limit the power of others.

Reputational approach and the concept of R. - J. Schwarzenberg

Elite is a closed group, the status and activities of which are evaluated by other groups of society, i.e. they determine its reputation.

J. Meino"Report on the ruling class of Italy" (1964): The elite - the "leading class" is closed, recruited from wealthy families, thanks to the strength of personal, informal ties between members of the ruling class, has a high group cohesion. The elite uses its opportunities to influence all aspects of public life to maintain its own favorable image among other groups.

R. - J. Schwarzenberg"Absolute Right" (1981): Elite - a closed caste (caste - a new aristocracy, is a "triangle of power", consisting of politicians, top administration and business circles). It absolutely controls power, forms the government, manages the state, manages large corporations and banks. The French political scientist Schwarzenberg believes that because France does not adhere to the principle of separation of powers, then power is oligarchic in nature, and the elite is a single class that monopolizes power in the political, administrative and economic sectors. Recruitment comes from the upper strata of society, receiving a prestigious, elite education.

Pluralistic approach and theories of plurality of elites (A. Bentley, R. Dahl, R. Aron, P. Sharan)

The elite is no longer a monolithic entity, but a collection of cooperating or competing leadership groups. This is due to the growing variety of human activities that satisfy the ever-progressing needs of man. The complexity of the structure of power itself.

American political scientist Bentley in The Process of Government (1908), he considered politics as a process of interaction between interested groups. Government institutions (constitution, congress, president, courts) represent and express the interests of "official groups". To "official groups", i.e. he attributed to the elite legislative, executive, administrative, judicial and legal institutions, the army, the police, the leading influence of which is ensured by their ability to impose a solution to conflicts between individual groups and thus maintain political stability.

A regime in which there are many autonomous decision-making centers, an American political scientist R. Dahl called polyarchy and thus characterized the political process in the United States. In this model of power, no elite dominates. From the free competition of rival groups, within the limits that are established by common consent, social equilibrium grows.

Some researchers identify leadership groups within the elite based on the delimitation of their spheres of influence and the resources used. R. Aron in his work “Social class, political class, ruling class” (1969) he singled out 6 guiding categories: 1. political elite; 2. holders of "spiritual power", influencing the way of thinking and faith (priests, intellectuals, writers, scientists, party ideologists); 3. military and police chiefs; 4. leaders of collective labor, owners or managers of the means of production; 5. leaders of the masses (leaders of trade unions and political parties); 6 top functionaries, holders of administrative power.

Indian political scientist P. Sharan in the book The Theory of Comparative Political Science (1984) he said that the maturity of society, the nature of cultural values ​​largely determine the image of the elite, the resources of its domination and influence. On this basis, he singled out the traditional elite and the modern one. Resources of domination of the traditional elite - religion, customs, traditions, cultural stereotypes. The modern elite includes various social and professional groups - leaders, officials, intellectual businessmen, technocrats. According to the degree of influence on the process of making strategic decisions, Sharan divided the modern elite into 3 groups: the highest (those who are directly involved in the decision-making process), the middle (belonging to which is determined by 3 indicators: income level, professional status, education) and the administrative elite (top layer

civil servants).

7. Political leadership: nature, content, typologies.

For 2011: (It DEFINITELY needs to be cut)

Leadership Theory: Nature and Approaches

Leadership- Public leadership is a social function due to the ability of a person to consciously set generally significant goals and determine ways to achieve them within the framework of political institutions created for this.

You can understand the phenomenon of leadership and its evolution by analyzing its components: 1) the character of the leader; 2) his political convictions; 3) motivation of political activity; 4) properties of his supporters and all political subjects interacting with him; 5) the specific historical situation when the leader came to power; 6) technology of implementation of leadership. A holistic and multifaceted picture of the manifestation of leadership develops as society evolves, the complexity of social relationships that actualize the specific functions of a leader.

Such a leader is, according to Plato a born philosopher. He justified the right of philosophers to political domination by the fact that they "contemplate something harmonious and eternally identical, which does not create injustice and does not suffer from it, full of order and meaning." What leaders find in the world of ideal being, they bring "into the private social life of people", making human mores pleasing to God. Leaders, in the understanding of Plato, act as the true creators of history: “It is enough for one such person to appear, having the state in his subordination, and this person will do everything that is now not believed.”

In Parallel Lives, Plutarch continued the Platonic tradition of portraying the ideal image of a leader. He showed a brilliant galaxy of Greeks and Romans with high moral standards and principles.

The ethical and mythological tradition in the analysis of political leadership retained its influence in the Middle Ages, introducing into it the idea that leaders were chosen by God, in contrast to mere mortals.

N. Machiavelli lane enes the problem of political leadership from the realm of the imaginary and proper to the plane of real life. In the works "The Sovereign" and "Reflections on the First Decade of Titus Livius" he defined the nature, functions and technology of leadership. N. Machiavelli singled out the content of leadership based on observations of the real behavior of the ruler and his relationship with his subjects. Leadership, according to Machiavelli, is based on the orientation towards power, the possession of which is associated with obtaining wealth and privileges. The property of striving for power does not depend on personal merits or demerits. It acts like an objective law, independent of the will and consciousness of people. Success in advancing to the heights of power is due not so much to the intensity of orientation towards power as to cash. A ruler who wants to succeed in his undertakings must conform his actions to the laws of necessity (fate) and to the behavior of his subordinates. Strength is on his side when he takes into account the psychology of people, knows the peculiarities of their way of thinking, moral principles, advantages and disadvantages.

According to N. Machiavelli, people's behavior is based on two motives - fear and love. They must be used by the ruler. When exercising power, it is better to combine both motives. However, in real life this is almost impossible, and for the personal benefit of the ruler, it is better to keep the subjects at bay. But it is necessary to act in such a way that fear does not grow into hatred, otherwise the leader may be overthrown by indignant subjects. To prevent this from happening, the leader must not encroach on the property and personal rights of citizens.

The technology of stable leadership, according to Machiavelli, consists in a skillful combination of rewards and punishments. People take revenge, as a rule, for slight grievances and insults. Strong pressure deprives them of the opportunity to take revenge. A leader who aspires to absolute power must keep his subjects in such fear as to take away any hope of resistance. It is more correct to squander good deeds and good deeds drop by drop, so that subordinates have enough time for their worthy assessment. Rewards should only be appreciated when they serve their intended purpose. Awards and promotions are valued if they are rare and distributed in "small doses". On the contrary, it is better to apply negative incentives, punishment immediately and in “large doses”. One-time cruelty is tolerated with less irritation than extended in time.

Building the theory of leadership on the relationship "ruler-subjects", N. Machiavelli derived the character of the leader from this interaction. A wise leader combines the qualities of a lion (strength and honesty) and the qualities of a fox (mystification and skillful pretense). Therefore, he has both innate and acquired qualities. By nature, a person is given less than he receives, living in society. He is straightforward, cunning or talented by birth, but ambition, greed, vanity, cowardice are formed in the process of socialization of the individual.

Dissatisfaction is the stimulus for active activity. The fact is that people always want more, but they can not always achieve this. The gap between the desired and the actual gives rise to a dangerous tension that can break a person, make him greedy, envious and insidious, since the desire to receive exceeds our strength, and opportunities are always lacking. As a result, there is dissatisfaction with what a person already owns. N. Machiavelli called this state of dissatisfaction. It is she who contributes to the transformation of the desired into reality.

However, dissatisfaction can manifest itself in envy and assertiveness. According to N. Machiavelli, envy generates enemies, and assertiveness acquires supporters. Speaking as a brilliant connoisseur of human psychology, he strikes with unexpectedly accurate comparisons and shocks with his revelations: “I still believe that it is better to be assertive than prudent, because fate is a woman and in order to defeat her, you need to beat and push her. In such cases, she more often concedes victory than when they show coldness towards her. And, as a woman, she is inclined to make friends with the young because they are not so prudent, more ardent and more boldly rule over her.

The role of a leader in society is determined by the functions that he is called upon to perform. Among the most important functions, N. Machiavelli singled out the provision of public order and stability in society; integration of heterogeneous interests and groups; mobilization of the population for the solution of generally significant goals. In general, N. Machiavelli's theory of leadership is based on four positions (variables): 1) the leader's power is rooted in the support of his supporters, 2) subordinates must know what they can expect from their leader and understand what he expects from them; 3) the leader must have the will to survive; 4) the ruler is always a model of wisdom and justice for his supporters.

In the future, researchers of leadership focused on certain components of this multifaceted phenomenon: either on the traits and origins of a leader; either on the social context of his leadership, that is, the social conditions of coming to power and exercising leadership; or on the nature of the relationship between the leader and his supporters; or on the results of the interaction between the leader and his followers in certain situations. The emphasis in the analysis of leadership on a particular variable led to an ambiguous interpretation of this phenomenon and initiated the emergence of a number of theories that explored the nature of leadership. Among the most common and generally accepted theories of leadership are the theory of traits, the theory of situational analysis, the situational-personal theory, and the integrative theory of leadership.

In trait theory(K. Beard, E. Bogardus, Y. Jennings, etc.) the leader is considered as a set of certain psychological traits, the presence of which contributes to his promotion to leading positions and gives him the ability to make power decisions in relation to other people. This theory is an important trend in Western empirical sociology in the 1930s and 1950s. XX century, which sought to express the phenomenon of leadership concretely and tangibly.

Trait theory arose in the early 20th century. influenced by the studies of the English anthropologist F. Galton, who explained the nature of leadership from the standpoint of heredity. From the point of view of this approach, royal dynasties and the consequences of dynastic marriages were studied. The main idea of ​​this approach is the assertion that if a leader has special qualities that distinguish him from supporters, then these qualities can be distinguished. These qualities are inherited.

In 1940, the American psychologist C. Beard compiled a list of 79 traits referred to by various researchers as "leadership". Among them were initiative, sociability, a sense of humor, enthusiasm, confidence, friendliness, a sharp mind, competence, etc. But none of them took a firm place in the lists: 65% of the named traits were mentioned only once; 16 - 20% - twice; 4 - 5% - three times, and only 5% of the features are named four times. In subsequent studies, it was found that the individual qualities of leaders are almost no different from a set of psychological and social personality traits in general.

However, regardless of this, senior officials are perceived as exceptional in terms of the dominant political culture and mentality, the population ascribes certain virtues to them. The degree of his support by the masses depends on the conformity of a particular politician to such an idea of ​​him. In American political culture, the president must necessarily possess some of the most important traits from the point of view of people, and first of all, he must be an honest, respectable family man. In addition, he must be open, decisive and have other moral qualities; be able to inspire the confidence of the masses. It was the possession of such qualities that made Ronald Reagan one of the most popular presidents of post-war US history.

Psychological interpretation of leadership focuses on the motivation of the leader's behavior. A manifestation of extreme psychologism in understanding the nature of leadership is the previously mentioned concept of psychoanalysis 3. Freud, who interpreted political leadership as a sphere of manifestation of repressed libido - an unconscious attraction of a sexual nature. The dissatisfaction of sexual needs forms a psychological tension in the individual, which is compensated by the thirst for power, the possession of significant power, allowing the individual to get rid of various complexes (for example, physical defects, unattractive appearance, etc.).

However, suppressed libido manifests itself in political activity as a desire for unlimited power, a desire to enjoy the humiliation of other people, a thirst for destruction. An analysis of the destructive type of political behavior with features of masochism and sadism, considered in the context of the sublimation of suppressed libido, was given by the American psychologist E. Fromm, in his work “Necrophiles and Adolf Hitler”. Using the method of psychobiography, E. Fromm traced the process of formation of the destructive political leadership of the leader of Nazi Germany from early childhood. However, the derivation of the phenomenon of leadership from the totality of psychological traits of a person or from his motivations and motives (conscious and unconscious) is not able to answer questions of a practical nature. For example, why did power often end up in the hands of far from the most intelligent, decent and honest people? An equally important problem: why did the most capable, talented, strong-willed individuals turn out to be unclaimed by society?

She tried to answer these questions and overcome the psychological interpretation of leadership. situation analysis theory, according to which the leader appears as a result of a confluence of circumstances of place, time, and others. In the life of a group, in various situations, separate individuals stand out who are superior to others in at least one quality. And since it is this quality that is in demand by the prevailing conditions, the person who possesses it becomes a leader. The situational theory of leadership considers the leader as a function of a certain situation, emphasizing the relativity of the traits inherent in the leader, and suggesting that qualitatively different circumstances may require qualitatively different leaders. For example, the extraordinary circumstances of economic ruin, foreign policy isolation of the USSR "brought" the totalitarian leader I.V. Stalin. The economic crisis of 1929 - 1933, the consequences of the national humiliation of Germany after the defeat in the First World War gave rise to the helplessness of the institutions of parliamentary democracy and "demanded" a strong leader - A Hitler.

Attempts to avoid extremes in the interpretation of the phenomenon of leadership (either from the standpoint of the theory of traits, or within the framework of the theory of situational analysis) objectively required expanding the boundaries of the analysis of the factors that form leading positions and determine the content of power influence. These attempts have led to personality-situational theory. Its supporters, G. Tert and S. Milz, among the variables of leadership that make it possible to know its nature, singled out the following four factors: 1) the traits and motives of a leader as a person; 2) the images of the leader and the motives that exist in the minds of his followers, encouraging them to follow him; 3) characteristics of the leader's role; 4) legal and institutional conditions of its activity.

The American political scientist Margaret J. Hermann expanded the number of variables that, in her opinion, allow to reveal the essence of leadership more deeply, including: 1) the leader's basic political beliefs; 2) the political style of the leader; 3) the motives that guide the leader; 4) the leader's reaction to pressure and stress; 5) the circumstances due to which the leader found himself in the position of leader for the first time; 6) previous political experience of the leader; 7) the political climate in which the leader began his political career.

Thus, political science has moved from one-sided psychologism in the analysis of leadership to a more holistic study of this phenomenon using sociological approaches. The social nature of leadership indicated that it was the result of interaction between the leader and his supporters, i.e., bilateral influence. A comprehensive (integrative) understanding of political leadership implies an analysis of the entire set of variables that affect the nature and content of leadership, including: 1) the study of the personality of the leader, his origin, the process of socialization and the method of promotion;

2) analysis of the leader's environment, his followers and opponents;

3) consideration of the relationship between the leader and supporters;

4) study of the social conditions for promotion to the leaders;

5) analysis of the results of interaction between the leader and his supporters in specific situations. The sociological interpretation of the nature of leadership focuses more on the analysis of the interaction between the leader and his followers. It allows you to identify the technology of effective leadership, to understand the logic of the political behavior of the leader.

6) In the framework of the integrative approach, motivational concepts of leadership and theories have recently dominated, focusing on the specifics of political styles. The latter direction makes it possible to reveal the predictability of the actions of a political leader and their possible effectiveness.

"Political style" is a rather capacious concept, the content of which includes a set of standard procedures for developing and making decisions, determining a political course and methods for its implementation, various ways leader-follower interactions, types of responses to emerging problems and the demands of different populations. The style of politics can be effective or ineffective, authoritarian or democratic, etc.

Leadership effectiveness can be achieved using different political styles. A style focused on solving specific problems based on a clear distribution of roles and functions, subordinating all resources to the solution of the task and the leader himself, fulfilling all the requirements of the leader holding an official position, underlies instrumental leadership.

However, the results of joint activities can be no less impressive if the leader does not occupy a leadership position, but acts, creating a favorable emotional environment in which each member of the group strives for the highest possible results. This political style underlies expressive (emotional) leadership. An example of this style is the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, the initiator of Chinese reforms, who left his official posts a long time ago, but continues to be an informal leader.

The effectiveness of leadership depends on the degree of coincidence of the motivation of the leader and his supporters, on the ability of the former to create incentives for the productive activity of the latter. The leader needs to know and clearly understand the attitudes and behavior of his followers, manifested in satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their work; approval or disapproval of its activities; motivation for one's own behavior. Knowing the motivation and behavioral attitudes of supporters allows the leader to determine the possible type of leadership behavior: either directive leadership, subordinating its supporters to the solution of a predetermined goal; either supportive leadership, stabilizing the behavior of its followers; or focused on achieving a qualitative result of the activities of supporters through significant rewards for it.

So, despite the differences in the interpretation of leadership, in understanding its nature, it is considered as a permanent, priority influence of the individual on society or a group. As already noted, this influence depends on a number of variables: on psychological personality traits, on the nature of the relationship between the leader and his supporters, on the motivation of leadership behavior and the behavior of his supporters. However, it is hardly possible to say that the secret of leadership is fully open. It is not yet clear, for example, how the “translation” of volitional influence takes place, why some ideas are perceived by people with readiness and enthusiasm, while others meet with resistance, rejection or indifference? How does the “screening out” of the leader’s decisions take place, some of which individuals recognize as legal in the moral and legal sense, and others as immoral?

It was proposed by the German social democrat sociologist Robert Michels, who studied the political evolution of socialist parties and wondered why, sooner or later, any people's party is headed by a handful of corrupt scoundrels and compromisers who desperately cling to their power and willingly negotiate with the regime about all sorts of compromises.

Michels concluded that any political structure, be it democracy or, on the contrary, autocracy, will inevitably eventually degenerate into an oligarchy - the power of a few leaders, soldered together by mutual responsibility and the desire not to share power with anyone and not to let anyone into their layer.

The power of the autocrat is divided among the advisers and, sooner or later, the retinue begins to play the king. The people, on the other hand, are forced to delegate the direct expression of their will to a few leaders who quickly create an apparatus that ensures their advancement almost indefinitely and controls the movement of the masses. In both cases, the real power levers are under the control of a small handful. The oligarchy is eternal, omnipotent and self-reproducing.

Michels' "Iron Law of the Oligarchy" played a very serious role in the sociological and political discrediting of democracy in the 20th century. Democracy began to be regarded as a fiction, as a sham, as a screen behind which this or that oligarchic elite successfully settles. The desire for democracy came to be seen as something unnatural, and democratic expectations as foolishness. For, allegedly, there is essentially no difference between democracy and authoritarianism.

Moreover, a parascientific tradition has arisen in historical journalism to interpret any democratic movements as movements of certain oligarchic elites. In particular - any anti-despotic speeches - such as the revolution in the Netherlands, the English Revolution, the WFR - these are all “conspiracies of the oligarchic elites” against the beneficent autocratic and autocratic monarchs, and the people's interests had nothing to do with it, or even getting out of the power of the beneficent despots was to the detriment of the people . In conservative journalism, the thesis that despotism is popular, and the democratic movement is a hidden form of the anti-popular oligarchy, has taken its place of honor.

The role of Michels' theory in discrediting democracy can hardly be overestimated. It is interesting that Michels himself eventually became a fascist, supported Mussolini and fascism, in which he saw the idea of ​​​​consistent implementation of the “power of the best”, which turned out to be the only and uncontested way to exercise real power within the framework of his theory.

However, is everything so simple with this “iron law”?

It is impossible to argue with Michels on one point. Any government is a control system. Any management generates a layer of managers who strive for self-organization, self-regulation, self-sufficiency, ignoring the influx of personnel and signals from outside. Any managerial stratum is transformed into a caste-oligarchic community with its own values, its own policy and the desire to shut down as much as possible and absorb external elements to a minimum degree, having previously digested them properly.

But here's the thing. Being arbitrarily closed and caste in itself, the oligarchy is not an independent and self-sufficient type of power, since it does not have sovereignty.

There is no oligarchic sovereignty.

Sovereignty is only of two kinds - popular and monarchical, most often associated or identified with the divine. There is no independent and independent aristocratic or oligarchic sovereignty. There is no group of "best" who could be considered an independent source of power.

The minority is always with someone. The aristocracy and oligarchy are always a service and auxiliary organizational system either under a monarchy (secular or sacred) or under popular rule. Sometimes an oligarchy can almost completely usurp administrative functions, become an all-powerful government - both on behalf of an autocratic sovereign and on behalf of an autocratic people (like, for example, the Jacobins). Sometimes the oligarchy can constitutionally consolidate its privileges - be it in the House of Lords (although in fact the House of Lords has long been collecting the foam of the oligarchy, and not the real rulers), or in Article 6 of the last Soviet Constitution. Sometimes an oligarchy can function as a transmission mechanism for changing monarchies - a classic example of a college of cardinals turning into a conclave. Sometimes the oligarchy can be an important structural element of the entire political system, like the Roman Senate (although it was this body, due to its antiquity and origin from the first settlers, that was as sovereign as oligarchic sovereignty is possible at all - the sovereignty of the Roman Senate is the limit of oligarchic sovereignty, and this chapel is very narrow - remember the formula SPQR, which could not exist in the form of SR).

But never, nowhere, no one can ascribe to the oligarchy the properties of power that has its source in itself. Either this is an oligarchy with autocracy, or with democracy. No other way.

Of course, the formation of real democracy in historical reality is very peculiar. Almost everywhere, democracy emerges as a result of a sovereign replacement procedure. That is, the oligarchic ruling stratum, for one reason or another, not finding it further possible to rely on the earthly or heavenly monarchy as a sovereign, tries to find a sovereign to replace the old and unsuitable and finds it precisely in democracy, in the power of the majority of the people. That is why, at a superficial glance, it may seem that an oligarchy develops from a monarchy, and a democracy develops from an oligarchy (the classical Platonic-Aristotelian scheme). In fact, the oligarchy takes shape as an instrument of monarchical sovereignty, survives (and sometimes devours) it, but, along with the death of this sovereignty, it turns out to be helpless, groundless, incapable of self-sovereignty. And then the oligarchy, often consciously and "from above" itself, is forced to rebuild a new system of sovereignty, now of the people. Moreover, if the first steps of this sovereignty are rather formal - the oligarchy simply begins to sanction itself not through the will of God or the tsar, but through the will of the people, then the further democratic process starts and develops until the people both formally and actually designate their sovereignty and full right life and death over any oligarchy.

What does this mean? This means that, without being self-sovereign, the oligarchy is always dependent on the mandate given to it by the bearer of sovereignty from outside. This means that the bearer of sovereignty can always revoke his mandate, challenge it, change it, and destroy any oligarchy. Oligarchy is always an outgrowth on the body politic, whether benign or malignant, or passing from one to the other, but not the organism itself.

To put it simply, in any political system, the people or the monarch always have the right to disperse any oligarchic stratum, even if they sometimes do not have the real strength to do so. Law is always on the side of the possessor of supreme sovereignty.

Accordingly, four types of oligarchic structures that exist in history can be distinguished - they will differ in the source of sovereignty. Two of these types will be pure and two intermediate.

1. Mono-oligarchies - that is, oligarchies in societies where the monarch, secular or theocratic, is considered the source of sovereignty. The source of power is the authority granted by him or the hierarchical system created by him (which can easily be higher than the will of a particular monarch, as, for example, under feudalism).

2. Demoligarchies - that is, oligarchies in societies where the people are considered the source of sovereignty, and the powers given to it by the people, most often through elections, are the source of power for the oligarchic elite, but other options are also possible.

3. Transit oligarchies - that is, oligarchies in the process of replacing the sovereign, when the power given by the monarch no longer justifies the actual power of the ruling stratum, and the people's powers are not yet justified. The oligarchy at this moment is trying to act from the position of "in fact the best" - the strongest, most influential, etc., based on the sovereignty of the fact and the right of force. But this situation is unstable and the oligarchy is forced to produce a more or less successful replacement of the subject.

4. Enraged oligarchies. Oligarchies that have broken away from the source of sovereignty and, unlike the transitional oligarchies, do not seek to cling to it again. Since, as mentioned above, the justification of its power by the oligarchy on itself is impossible, it tries to base itself on violence and lies, presenting as the sources of its sovereignty that which in reality is not.

Essentially, no democratic structure can degenerate into an oligarchic one. It can become such in terms of the administrative apparatus or personnel policy, but sovereignty itself does not pass to the oligarchy. Which means for any democratic structure the right to abolish the oligarchy at any time. Moreover, this right is absolute - democracy has the right to change, cancel, abolish its highest ruling stratum without any explanations, justifications, or even grounds.

It is clear that in fact this happens infrequently and it does not make sense to do it often, since technically any management structure is oligarchized and it makes no sense to disperse the oligarchy just because it is an oligarchy. The question is different - what kind of oligarchy is this particular oligarchy and does the sovereign have mechanisms to influence it despite the oligarchic tendencies towards self-isolation?

Democracy should strive not to avoid becoming oligarchs at any cost, but to ensure that the “democratic oligarchy” is clearly aware of its origin and the source of its mandate, and that there are tools to influence it.

What are these tools for a "democratic" oligarchy? These are democratic procedures.

1. Elections. A correct, established, uniform procedure that a. available to any participant in this democratic system (citizen, party member, voter), b. protected from outright forgery of votes, c. protected from sanctions for "incorrect" voting. If the electoral procedure satisfies these three principles, then it is democratic. And everything else within its framework is POSSIBLE. You can arbitrarily cut districts, you can break the rules of agitation, you can bribe voters if you are not caught - all this is nonsense. Essential, but nonsense. But if at least one is violated - a. lists of candidates or voters are arbitrarily manipulated, b. falsified results. sanctions follow this or that choice, then this system is not democratic and the oligarchy that introduces it is a “furious oligarchy” eliminated by one or another non-procedural means.

2. Displacement of officials. If it is not carried out naturally through elections, then there must be other tools - special impeachment procedures, restrictions on the terms and times of holding office, suspension by lawsuit and all that. Since the oligarchies really do not like people's interference in their personnel policy, this is supplemented by such a wonderful institute of demoligarchies as resignation. That is, a certain official himself renounces power, thereby preventing the activation of the mechanisms of popular sovereignty and retaining control over the situation for the oligarchy. But if everyone is happy, then that's fine. Finally, in ancient Athens, which created a model of a democratic system, there was such a thing as ostracism - in fact, impeachment from the post of a socio-political figure. If we cannot fire Yavlinsky, Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky, no matter how tired we are of them - after all, they are public figures, politicians, then the Athenians could easily cope with this - they would simply expel them by ostracism for 10 or 5 years, clearing the site. In general, the Athenians developed an exceptionally subtle toolkit for the systematic suppression of oligarchic tendencies within the framework of their policy, and it worked for them, albeit not without interruptions, but it worked.

3. The system of guarantees to the lower ones from the arbitrariness of the higher ones. This is the most fundamental of democratic rights—more important than even the right to choose or recall. In this right, specific cells of the democratic system protect themselves and each other from the pressure of those who, within the framework of the demoligarchy, will advance to the oligarchic heights. This is also a set of classical personal rights that have been established in Europe. This is the Roman right of provocation - an appeal to the people's assembly against a death sentence pronounced by a consul or a praetor. This is an Athenian law forbidding the sale of a citizen into slavery. Where democracies do not arise “from below”, and they almost everywhere do not arise from below, but as a result of the process of replacing the sovereign described above, then it is the system of guarantees to the lower classes from the top that is the first signal and the first result of the democratic process. And, strictly speaking, it is precisely in them that the greatest value of democracy and "demoligarhic" tools for the people, before the monarchy and mono-oligarchy lies.

The monarchy can only grant privileges and favors to the rank and file, which are all in the hands of the sovereign and which can be challenged and abolished in practice by the “monarchist oligarchy” (“the king favors, but the kennel does not favor”). While the democratic system considers rights as something immanent to the citizen and inalienable from him. Roughly speaking. In any system with monarchical sovereignty, "Don't flog Vanka" can only be a mercy that can be trampled on by the Boyar Borifey and the deacon Peskarev, who abused the royal name. Their crime is a crime against the order of government. In a democratic system, “unporedness” refers to the essential properties of Vanka, and an attempt to flog him, if it can end successfully, will in fact still be a crime against the foundations of the constitutional order, and not just against the order of government.

4. Desacrylegization of criticism. Demoligarchic systems differ significantly from monooligarchic ones in their attitude towards criticism. Of course, criticism is neither pleasant nor sympathetic for any ruling stratum. But. Monooligarchic systems are characterized by a tendency to declare criticism of the sacrilegium as sacrilege, blasphemy, heresy, lèse majesté, a violation of the sacred world order, requiring immediate amputation by fire and sword. Criticism is no less unpleasant for demoligarchies, but they do not ascribe to it a blasphemous character. More precisely, all attempts to cross democracy and sacrilege have failed, the episode with Socrates lies on them like a curse. The Athenian democracy decided to punish its critic as a blasphemer and choked on this death forever. By this, by the way, Socrates greatly strengthened the foundations of precisely democratic systems. Demoligarchies can ignore criticism, can hide information, can try to convict critics of lies, sue for slander. As a last resort, they can hide behind state secrets. But… the demoligarchy is incapable of declaring the very fact of a critical statement as blasphemy.

Thus, demoligarchy has a number of specific features that fully justify its formation, even taking into account everything that is formulated in Michels' Iron Law. Yes. This is exactly the same closed caste striving for self-sufficiency and self-regulation, like any other ruling caste. Yes, the demoligarchy closes itself very quickly from the people, seeks to stew in its own juice and manipulate voters to obtain a mandate. Yes, sometimes it looks disgusting compared to mono-oligarchies, where there is a hierarchy deployed from above, behind which one can suspect and foresee a divine origin. But demoligarchies also have their advantages. 1. They are free from impostorism, while among the mono-oligarchies one can often meet those (and the closer to our time, the more) who flaunt an imaginary heavenly mandate, in fact they do not possess it, 2. Their systemic restriction is a must a built-in mechanism for protecting the cells of the "sovereign", that is, the citizen, from violence and harassment by his "servants". Paradoxically, a democratic citizen is protected from his "servants" in general (!!!) more reliably than a monarch from his own, although this is bought at the cost of diffusion of sovereignty between an almost infinite number of its bearers.

But more terrible than both mono-oligarchies and demoligarchies is an enraged oligarchy that has no intelligible sovereign foundations, a political chimera that pretends either to be the power of the people, or a divine institution, why in vain does it use violence, and manipulates its principles, and constantly lies, lies, lies ... What we have now is just a typical enraged oligarchy.

Its sovereign origins are incomprehensible. The papers seem to say that democracy. So there must be elections, turnover and all that. But... As soon as the question about the same falsifications arises, the following turns out to be a defensive argument: “they always falsified, why are you only now beginning to be indignant?”. As soon as it comes to changing something and someone, then we immediately get a kind of photocopy of a heavenly mandate under our noses. That in some unthinkable way this ruler was not formed by a democratic procedure, but sent by God (or Allah, or the Great Void) ... And in general, there is no alternative.

But, at the same time, as soon as we try to understand the sacred nature of this mandate, everything floats. It immediately becomes clear that this is not Christian authority from God. And not dynastic inheritance (except, of course, inheritance from Yeltsin as such). None of the sacralizing clothes that were sewn by the "senseocrats" of the 2000s did not fit in the end or quickly broke off. The bare torso of power remained. As a result, if there is some kind of vertical from top to bottom, then perhaps at the level “I was born in the year of the dragon and let the year of the dragon bring us good luck.” At the level of everyday occultism as the leading religion of our era.

However, democratic representation is not only demoligarchic, but also leader, heroic, Fuhrer. Based on exceptional people's love, incredible achievements, concentration of mass charisma in one person. But, due to the depletion of this charisma, it also looks strange here - in fact, the communication of power with the masses today looks like this: “I am power because I am power, I owe nothing to you, I am not obliged to demonstrate success, but you contact, contact, Let's take a look at the little things." And all this is highlighted with tons of lies - and if a few years ago the lie worked, it was that golden dream that the masses wanted to be inspired by. Now this is a strained lie in which no one believes. Especially tragic are those who believe that the system, for one reason or another, must stand and be preserved, but, at the same time, they cannot invent a convincing lie “why it is necessary”. It turns out a well-intentioned-pathetic lie in which pity is only emphasized by well-intentionedness. Taken together, it is a grandiose fakecracy.

In fact, the last resource of legitimacy that still somehow works is phobocracy. It is the manipulation of the feeling of fear: a. everywhere the intrigues of enemies, b. a global conspiracy against us, c. everything will fall apart without us, d. those who want to come instead of us, it’s even worse, e. look, look at their faces, it’s definitely worse, f. . So far, the last argument exists only latently. As soon as it is voiced more or less aloud, it will be possible to order not just a coffin - a tombstone wreath of fresh flowers, without fear that they will wither. But if before that, phobocracy was an effective resource along with others - with hopes, faith, promises, carrots, dosed violence. Now fear has remained the only and uncontested tool. The measure of power was the measure of fear.

At the same time, it is paradoxical that our enraged oligarchy came to power precisely under anti-oligarchic slogans. Positioned itself as an alternative to the oligarchy and a rein on the oligarchs. But it quickly became clear that structurally this is precisely an oligarchic regime - not democratic, not authoritarian, not monarchical, even, in general, not tyrannical, but precisely an oligarchic regime with a closed self-regulating circle of almost irremovable bosses, busy increasing their incomes and privileges. Thus, the "anti-oligarchic" card is also, in fact, a bit.

Moreover, no conspirators-oligarchs fresher than Khodorkovsky have been presented to society, and the peculiarity of the oligarchy is that it is a layer, there cannot be one oligarch, there must be several of them. If “the oligarchs unleashed a war against Putin, name them. But no, even Prokhorov, officially identified as Putin's competitor, is within the framework of the official myth "our guy" and "good". Even after the whispers on the topic “Alfabank opened unlimited financing to Navalny,” no one ever dares to point a finger at Fridman out loud, or at least check this gossip for authenticity. The oligarchic conspiracy turns out to be part of a macabre veil that masks (every day, however, worse) the real and non-illusory modern oligarchy - those few among whom and between whom power is distributed.

And for this oligarchy, in fact, the whole country has only one simple question: From whom and why do you need power?

The very question of sovereignty, which is like a knife to the throat of this enraged oligarchy.

And then it turns out that the memorized answers do not work: “From you people, for your own good” - a lie was detected; “From God, you serfs, rule with an iron rod” - nah-reaction detected; "From fierce foreign enemies, in order to protect the Russian Land of Multinational Russian Federation…. from fierce foreign enemies ”- that somehow sounds at least funny, but only for a short time, especially if, God forbid, you really have to protect.

It was the model of legitimation of power that came to the crisis, which worked all the zero years, and consisted in the fact that there was simply power, people looked at it, and the smartest of them explained to the rest why, in the name of what sublime meanings this was needed. Since at the same time, in such a short time, it was possible to publicly spit on ALL explaining and legitimizing meanings, and besides this, it was possible to spit in the souls of a mass of people who, moreover, became hypersensitive to bossy saliva, then this scheme does not work further.

Of course, a combination of private legitimation schemes can work. In the Middle Ages, something often happened just like that. For example, “Power was given to us by the people of Dagestan, so that we feed the peoples of Dagestan” ... Oh, no, something dumb. - Uranus in the third house. “Why should this be of interest to residents of other houses?” They can say “Suitcase. Railway station. Makhachkala.

Better like this: "The power was given to us by the workers of Uralvagonzavod, so that we buy the T-90 tank from them." This is already good motivation. This is objectively a strong motivation. No worse than the American one: "What's good for General Motors is good for the United States."

From the totality of these private delegations of sovereignty, “Power is given to us by fishermen so that we give them a lot of bloodworms and launch revived sturgeon into the rivers”, “Power is given to us by Ivanovo weavers so that we buy chintz from them and bring them good-quality men”, purely theoretically it was possible to constitute a general sovereignty sufficient for a certain self-determination of our lost oligarchy. To be honest, I thought that this would be the case with the Popular Front - it was a completely useless thing for the political victory of elections, but a very convenient form for falsifying them. After all, if the game was in full growth, then it was technically possible to believe that all the members of the organizations that were given a lot of different promises under the Front voted for the United Russia. 50-55% on winding up the idea of ​​​​the Popular Front and "cheap populism" could well have been pulled.

Of course, this would be a rather crooked version of the socialist politics of the twentieth century, when a well-groomed gentleman puts on a shabby jacket, shakes his hand for a long time to a coal-smeared miner, grimacing in disgust takes his grimy, snotty children in his arms, compliments his fat crooked-toothed wife, shows them a photograph of his father - also a miner, introduces a small improvement in the life of the mine, some penny law, which, however, gives people infinite relief. And then he changes into a tailcoat and goes to a cigar club or to the races and goes to those who have long been his true classmates.

But, one of the features of our oligarchy is that it is not just lost. She is furious. It is trying, contrary to the fundamental policy principle we have indicated, to be a self-sovereign oligarchy, which is simply physically impossible. But for this reason, she herself continuously cuts off her roots.

Enraged oligarchy is not enough to trump the Tagil workers. She must first trump them, and then immediately dump him in the dirt indicatively. Humiliate. And humiliate publicly. The gentleman arrives at the opening of the new ventilation mechanism in the mine dressed up in a tailcoat and on a racehorse. First of all, he goes to the most expensive local brothel. Having opened a new ventilation system and urging everyone to vote for the United New South Wales party, he spits relish on the dress of the miner's wife, makes a remark that the children are grimy, and closes the school in the mining village. Moreover, all this is done not out of the simplicity of the soul, but to show: "That's who you are and that's who I am." With the desire to emphasize the transcendence of his power to this flirting with the people.

This transcendence is illusory, but its reasons are also absolutely clear. Within the framework of the current oligarchy, this is, first of all, the KGB self-consciousness. That is, people grew up with a sense of the Soviet quasi-elite. People who served a certain higher power, the “Great Dragon”, could do a lot of things, had something, felt themselves chosen, were subjected to a certain selection. That is, they have a sense of their own specialness. And then something amazing happened - the Great Dragon disappeared somewhere. The source of their legitimacy and identity suddenly disappeared. Simply died. Well, or killed the evil enemies. One way or another, it does not exist, there is no demand from it, there is no fear of it. And the people were special. Yes, even in power. Yes, and with a rich country and patient people in their hands. There is something to be angry about. By the way, the same applies to other groups of the post-Soviet nomenklatura - they all have a common sense of a source that created some kind of their peculiarity and disappeared, and therefore does not require either an account or discipline.

However, now, firstly, the post-Soviet momentum has almost dried up - both in a positive and negative sense. If 10 years ago neo-Sovietism would have gone with a bang, now it looks like necromancy. Secondly, an intermediate oligarchic system without a sovereign is fundamentally unstable. This is a transitional form that must be molded into something - either into democracy or into a monarchy. But, at the same time, the mono-oligarchic version was already spoiled, more precisely, corrupted - an understanding was formed that while they are talking to you about spirituality and service, they are climbing into your pockets, and the thought of a hierarchy built from top to bottom from THESE is disgusted even by the most staunch guardian.

That is why so many demands are aimed at the formation of a Demoligarchy, that is, a system in which the ruling elite exercises its power in accordance with the 4 restrictions on the procedure noted above - 1. elections, 2. the right to impeachment, 3. the protection of a small person, 4. recognition of criticism of non- sacrilege.

At the same time, criticism of this option is seen along several lines, which so far seem to be very weak.

1. Along the Michels line. That is an indication that it will be an oligarchy. Of course. It will be an oligarchy. Like the current oligarchy regime. like any other political regime, it is an oligarchy. The question is whether it is a demoligarchy, a mono-oligarchy, or an enraged oligarchy as it is now. In fact, the appeal to Michels' law is a form of the aforementioned phobocracy - do not touch anything, everything is in vain anyway, otherwise it will be worse.

2. Monooligrachy is better than demoligarchy. In theory, many would agree with this. But as soon as a specific political context arises, then either former ghouls or not completely washed ghouls come out as prophets, hands of God, heralds and honest servants of the sovereign, regarding which the mere thought that they can do something by the power of God plunges in horror. Moreover, the louder they shout that the power of God is in them, the less credit and the greater the understanding that all these conversations are simply to delay the end of the existing state of affairs.

3. Well, of course, one cannot completely discount democratic illusionism. That is, a sincere faith in the People governs himself. In good and wise leaders who will lead us to victory. Etc. Their final result, as a rule, does not differ from the generation of demographics from above. It just takes longer, noisier, sometimes bloodier through leaderism, Bonapartism, Jacobinism and other joys.

The necessary minimum that is obligatory for us today is the transition from the state of an enraged oligarchy, as it is now, at least to the state of a transit oligarchy, that is, an oligarchy that does not deceive about the sovereign sources of its power, but at least honestly seeks them and honestly constructs them.