Any regulatory legal acts, including laws, regulate social relations, making them permitted or translating into the category of offenses. Only a body that has gone through the process of legitimizing power can determine such powers for them. This article will talk about what this phenomenon implies and what it is, in fact, necessary for, and whether it is necessary at all.
What does this concept mean?
How to explain the concept of “legitimation of power”? In professional language, this phenomenon captures the lawfulness of the occurrence of any formation or action. Legalization is ensured by the country's main law - the Constitution. It is this regulatory act that is the basis for the formation of the social and state system. It determines the structure of organs, as well as the methods with respect to which their activities are built. The constitution promotes the legitimization of political power. That is, the state body itself and its activities have a legitimate basis.
In addition to the Constitution, there are a number of other legal acts that make political power and its powers legalized. These include the following official written documents:
- laws that can regulate the work of the president, parliament, the judiciary and other bodies;
- presidential decrees;
- government regulations;
- court decisions.
What is the essence of this phenomenon?
The legitimation of power is not only a practical process, but also a theoretical concept that is very often found in modern political scientific works. She is the subject of controversy and discussion in various circles. In general, the majority give her the following characteristics: formal legality, which has legal reinforcement in the form of a special regulatory act. But in this way, the legitimation of political power is defined in the political and legal senses.
However, this phenomenon is quite dual. It also has psychological implications. In the minds of people, there is such a principle that considers everything that is fixed by power structures to be positive. That is, a person agrees with the lawfulness of the behavior of state bodies, regardless of whether it is such or not. That is why the population feels the strength and superiority of government structures and is ready, in fact, voluntarily to obey any order. Thus, such a relationship that has been established between the inhabitants of the state and its rulers is defined by psychology as the legalization and legitimization of state power. People at a subconscious level recognize any areas of government activity as fair and legitimate. So, in a sense, legitimacy means a respectful attitude and authority of the government among citizens of the state. This suggests that recognizing power is legally insufficient; it is still important to establish contact with the people by matching value concepts and guidelines.
How is legitimacy reflected in the situation in society?
It is believed that the legitimacy and legitimization of power contribute to the stabilization of society. People are reassessing their priorities. It is these concepts that guarantee further development and progress within the state.They are so strong in their action and influence on popular sentiment that the comprehensive rehabilitation of the economic and political sector simply cannot compete.
The legitimacy and legitimization of political power determine and fix a fairly extensive range of sources of origin and forms. At the moment, political science distinguishes three subjects regarding which these processes are carried out. These include:
- civil society;
- power structures;
- foreign policy forces.
It is the mood of the first subject that determines the role of government in society. Thanks to the approving glance of the majority of the residents of the state, we can speak of a prosperous and stable situation both in the country and in the governing apparatus itself. In order to form a positive image of the ruling elite, it needs to prove itself positively in solving any social problems. Only attention and interest in the life of ordinary people can cause support from citizens. The recognition of government eligibility is due to various factors. These include relations between different sectors of the population, ideological and political views, mentality, historically established traditions and moral values. The correct comprehensive impact on the social mechanism can provide the authority of the governing apparatus among the masses.
What is traditional legitimacy?
For the first time, the concept of “legitimization of state power” was singled out and formulated by Max Weber. It was this German sociologist who put forward the idea that the causes of this phenomenon are not always similar. This allows us to conclude that the process is heterogeneous. Weber also identified (according to a number of classification features) three types of the phenomenon of legalization. The main reason for this separation is the motivation of submission. This selection of species is relevant today and is recognized in political science.
The first type is called the traditional legitimation of power. This is a classic version of legitimizing the actions of the state apparatus, since the action is determined by the need to subordinate the people to power. As a result of established customs, people have a habit, a need for submission to political institutions.
This type of legitimation is inherent in powers with a hereditary type of government, that is, where the monarch is at the head. This is due to the values developed in the process of historical events. The person in the person of the ruler has a steady and undeniable authority. The image of the monarch defines all his actions as lawful and fair. The advantage of this type of statehood is a high level of stability and sustainability of society. At this stage, this type of legitimation in its pure form is almost gone. He acts, as a rule, combined. The traditional campaign is supported by modern social institutions, apparatuses and “clerical domination”.
What is rational legitimacy?
The legitimization of power may also have a more reasonable basis. In this case, the determining factors are not emotions and beliefs, but common sense. Rational legitimacy, or in another way - democratic, is formed by the recognition by the masses of the correctness of the decisions adopted by the state apparatus. Only, unlike the previous type, people are guided not by blind beliefs directed in favor of their leader, but by a real understanding of affairs. Power structures organize a system consisting of generally accepted rules of behavior. The principle of its action is to implement the goals of the government through the fulfillment by the people of these rules.
The basis of all the foundations in such a state is law. The legitimization of power of this type is characteristic of a society with a more complex structural formation.It is according to law that power is exercised on a legal basis. This determines the national gratitude and authority of not a specifically allocated person who has concentrated power in his hands, but of the whole structure of the state apparatus.
What determines legitimacy based on faith in a leader?
The charismatic method of legalization (legitimization of power) is when the recognition of any actions of the ruling structure is determined by the personal qualities of the leader. Outstanding personalities could always establish contact with the masses. The general image of the ruler is transferred to the entire current system of power. Most often in this case, people unconditionally believe the words and actions of their ideological mastermind. The strong character of a person forms an emotional upsurge among the population. A leader can suppress unrest in society with one word or, conversely, cause active movements.
If you look at history, you can see that according to the method of legitimation, the authorities single out leadership as the main way of manipulating people during a period of revolutionary sentiment. At this time, it is possible to influence citizens quite easily, since an emotional outburst causes instability of the psychology of society. People, as a rule, do not trust the past political order. Principles, ideology, norms and values are changing. Such a period is a very fertile ground for political games. The emergence of a new charismatic leader certainly instills in people faith in a brighter future, which raises his authority in the eyes of the people.
Such leaders were saturated with various periods of history. Among them are a huge number of historical figures, leaders, heroes and prophets. But most often this image is created artificially. Basically, the foundation of its creation is the active work of the media. A leader is simply imposed on people. It succeeds very easily, since there is practically nothing to rely on people. Values built up in the process of history are betrayed and broken; there are no existing results yet. Innovations do not bear fruit, but only make them tighten their belts even tighter. But all around and inspire faith in the changes that the new ruler will provide.
According to Weber himself, it is this type that is defined as absolute legitimacy. He explained this by the fact that the personal qualities of a leader make him a superman. A similar phenomenon can be allowed in democratic states. But in the classic version, this is a process inherent in the totalitarian and authoritarian regime.
What other notions of legitimacy exist?
In the course of the emergence of new political processes in history, ways of legitimizing power were formed, which had a completely different character than that determined by Weber. Newly emerging concepts suggested that the concept could have a broader meaning. That is, the object of legitimacy became not only the power itself as a substance, but also the totality of political institutions.
The American political representative S. Lipset tried to formulate a new definition of this phenomenon. He described the legitimacy of power as the faith of the masses that the state apparatus acts fairly, lawfully and in the interests of society. However, the state apparatus itself was understood as political institutions. Another colleague, D. Easton, defined “legitimacy” from the standpoint of moral values. That is, the government itself must act in such a way that it gives results that correspond to the idea of the people themselves about honesty, correctness and justice. In this case, the political scientist implies the following methods of legitimizing power: ideology, political regime and political leadership. Regarding these sources, one can distinguish a certain classification feature. According to the method of legitimation, authorities distinguish:
- ideological;
- structural;
- personalized.
How does D. Easton classify legitimacy?
The types of legitimation of power are represented by three categories. The first is called ideological. The correctness of decisions made by the state apparatus is determined by belief in a stable set of values. The strength of legitimacy in this case is determined by the support of the masses. That is, the more citizens share the ideology and policy of the government, the more legitimate and legitimate the government is.
The second type is structural legitimacy. It resembles Weber's rational legitimacy. Here also people are guided not by feelings and beliefs, but by reason. The people understand and approve of the correct distribution of responsibilities in the structure of government. The way in which society lives is subject to a system that is based on legal norms.
In a similar way, an analogy can be drawn between other species. For example, such types of leadership in the way of legitimizing power, as charismatic and personal, have a common essence. Both of them are based on an unquestioning faith in the authority of a leader. The level of legitimacy of his actions is determined by individual abilities and the ability of the ruler to best manage his personal qualities. The difference between the concepts of Weber and Easton is that, according to the first, the leader can be a truly charismatic personality. Even if its qualities are too exaggerated by the media, they are in any case present. It is impossible to reach such a level without having anything like it. According to Easton's theory, everything is quite the opposite - a person who does not have any specific abilities can be a ruler. There are quite a few examples in history when unremarkable personalities receive the active support of a wide section of the population.
What is D. Beetham's theory?
Certain types of legitimation of power were singled out by D. Beetham. His concept, as it were, summarizes what was said both by D. Easton and M. Weber. But, in his opinion, this process is carried out in three stages:
- The first level is the formation of a set of rules according to which a person can receive and send power.
- The second level consists of the conviction or coercion of both the state apparatus and the masses. The main direction regarding which further manipulations are built is the principles of the functioning of the political system.
- At the third stage, citizens convinced of the legitimacy and justice of the ruling structures actively agree with the actions of the government.
D. Beetham believed that the absoluteness of this process can be expressed in the established interaction between the meaning of the political game, positive reviews of its content and the formed political system. The latter expresses a voluntary desire to preserve it.
What does delegitization mean?
The opposite, but no less important, is the concept of delegitimization. The action indicated by this term is the final stage in the life cycle of power and signifies the loss of trust and deprivation of influence on society.
This process arises for completely different reasons. It can be preceded by a single event, or their combination. Problems with faith in the government also arise when there is a discord in the state apparatus itself. As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head, and if the authorities cannot divide the sphere of interests, then the legitimacy will also come to an end soon. The cause of the difficulties that may arise may be the contradiction between democratic ways of influencing society and forceful methods. An attempt to aggressively influence the media may result in a loss of support for the masses. Also, unrest among the population easily arise in the absence of protective mechanisms.A high level of corruption and bureaucracy can have an additional impact on the emergence of the process of delegitimization. Phenomena such as nationalism, separatism and racial strife are factors that undermine the positions of ruling structures.
Political science even defines such a concept as a “crisis of legitimacy”. It implies a period of time during which society loses faith in honesty, justice, and the legitimacy of actions committed by state bodies within their powers. The political system is simply not perceived by the people. If the hopes assigned to the state apparatus by citizens of the country do not come true over time, then support should not be expected from them either.
To overcome the crisis, the government needs to have constantly established contact with the population. And it is worth considering the opinion of all walks of life. To do this, timely informing about the goals and directions of the authorities. It is necessary to demonstrate to people that any issues can be resolved in a legitimate way, without violence. State structures themselves must be organized. A political game must be played without infringing on the rights of any of its participants. In society, it is necessary to constantly promote democratic values.