Political elites: concept, signs, functions. Political elite

Elitism in a democratic society

Elitism of society modern period is a proven fact. Elimination of political elitism is possible only through public self-government. But at the present stage of the development of human civilization, self-government by the people is an ideal.

Remark 1

For a democratic country, it is not the fight against elitism that is of paramount importance, but the creation of a more useful, effective for society elite, ensuring its social representation, timely renewal of quality, preventing tendencies of the oligarchy, turning into a dominant privileged caste of a closed type.

Mutual relationship political elite and society is shown in the theories of democratic elitism, arguing that the elite needs to rule in order for popular power to survive.

Based on this position, democracy is the rule of elites, approved by the people. The foundations of this understanding of democracy were laid by M. Weber at the beginning of the 20th century. The elite, according to Weber, is a layer of professional politicians who are invested with popular confidence. The elite, through the system of elections, is dependent on the population, and therefore seeks to win the sympathy of those who are elected.

A political scientist of German origin limited the forms of political participation of the masses only to elections, since he did not believe in the possibility of the existence of a wise people. Weber's ideas were further developed in the theories of elitist democracy:

• S. Lipset;
• J. Schumpeter;
• J. Sartori;
• R. Dahl.

In their writings, the theory of polyarchic democracy was developed. In the interpretation of J. Sartori, democracy is represented by a selective polyarchy, elected on the basis of merit.

Ideologies of political elites in democratic societies

In the second half of the twentieth century, discussions about the essence of elites were joined by discussions on their composition. There are two approaches to this issue:

1. The idea of ​​pluralism, according to which society is a set of political interest groups, each of which singles out its own elite and exercises its control; the division into the masses and the elite is conditional; elites are "open" to include in their own ranks more capable, active and effective representatives of the masses.
2. The left-liberal concept of elites, associated with the name of the American political scientist Mills, who preaches the idea of ​​the homogeneity of the elite. The homogeneity of the elite, according to Mills, is determined by the similarity of biographies, a common lifestyle, and the same value system. Mills draws attention to the following means of elite consolidation: education; marriage bonds; membership in aristocratic clubs. The political scientist concludes that open elites are impossible: recruitment to the elite is carried out from one's own environment.

Any of these theories has been criticized by many political scientists.

The Role of the Political Elite in Democratic Societies

Remark 2

Democracy requires elites to interpret politics as the art of contracting among themselves. The commonality of views of the elites on the values ​​of the existence of democratic institutions is recognized as the main sign of this stability.

The elites play an independent and active role in social processions, but in their own actions they are still dependent on the masses. For example, the political elite has a need for support from the wider public. This means that its autonomy is determined by a certain sphere, having stepped outside of which, the political elite acquires the risk of losing power or chances of gaining it.

In this regard, the elites and the public interact in the following way: on the one hand, representatives of some elite try to gain the support of citizens (at referendums, elections), and on the other hand, they try to modify their beliefs or form new ones. In turn, citizens or their associations make attempts to influence the elites so that they make such decisions that meet the interests of citizens and their societies. This is a very dynamic and complex mechanism of mutual action of elites and citizens can live as long as there is consistency between the interests of citizens and the policy of the elite.

If the disagreements between the masses and the elite have reached a critical point, when the elite is no longer able to provide itself with the minimum necessary support from the citizens, the described mechanism collapses, and the place of the former elite is occupied by a new one. In this regard, political social stability largely depends on the fundamental consistency of the value-normative systems of the elite and citizens and their communities.

The modern Russian elite does not have a clear understanding of their direct duties towards the state and society. One of the reasons for this is the presence of some features of the newest Russian elite, which were inherited from the Soviet society: corporatism, isolation, but at the same time unwillingness to act jointly. This situation began to manifest itself in the Soviet period, and these properties were predetermined back in the Moscow kingdom. Today in Russia, an elite is operating, which can be defined as anti-social, anti-people, anti-patriotic, an elite that is not capable of developing an ideology for the improvement of society and the state. The absence of a patriotic-minded elite contributed to the formation of a crisis in the state: the new Russian elite has a “cult of the portfolio” much stronger than love for the Fatherland.

Elite-cratic tendencies prevailed in mutual relations "elite-society". The political, administrative and political, and business elite of Russia makes their own contribution to them. It is important to note the strengthening of this trend for last years. It can testify both to the craving for aristocratization, and to the slow fading of democratic tendencies, which allowed the elite to pass to power and seize property on the wave of the “democratic revolution”.

The central role of the elite in the politics of the modern stage is determined by the fact that it specifically has a relationship with the state of the people. Questions about how it can implement this in a democratic society appear to be one of the main problems of elite education.

As we have already pointed out, power relations are asymmetric. Societies of all types, in their internal structure, are usually divided into two classes: those who rule (the ruling minority) and those who are ruled (the ruled majority). Those who rule are called the elite.

The concept of elite (Latin eliger - to select, French elite - the best, selective, elected) refers to groups of people who have high position in a society with prestige, power, wealth, active in various fields public life.

Allocate a broader concept of "power elite" (Figure 5.1). Belonging to it is determined by the occupation of dominant positions in society, the highest performance in their professional field. There are as many types of elites as there are types of power in society. The political elite is only a part of the ruling elite.

The political elite is a minority of society, a fairly independent, superior, relatively privileged group of people with leadership qualities, capable of managerial activities, directly involved in making and implementing decisions related to the use of state power or influence on it.

The main features of the political elite are the possession of power and the monopolization of the right to make decisions. The political elite concentrates state power in their hands and occupies command posts, managing society. Possession of power provides a privileged and dominant position in society.

In addition, the political elite is characterized by the structural constancy of its power relations. When changing (changing) the personal composition of the elite, these relations basically remain unchanged. Tribal leaders, monarchs, boyars, nobles, people's commissars, party secretaries, presidents, parliamentarians, ministers were replaced, but the relations of domination and subordination between the elite and the masses persist. Any government is oligarchic, which inevitably implies the dominance of the few over the many.

The functioning of the state is impossible without the political elite. The division of society into managers and managed is due to the following factors:

Allocation in the course of the division of labor special kind professional activity - managerial work requiring competence, special knowledge and abilities;

The hierarchical organization of society is manifested in the domination of some people and the subordination of others, so the social division into leaders and executors, managing and managed is inevitable;

The natural inequality of people in terms of mental, psychological, organizational, moral qualities and abilities for managerial activity leads to the alienation of the majority of citizens from power and politics and unwillingness to participate in political processes;

The high status of managerial activity is associated with the possibility of obtaining various social privileges, honor, fame;

The practical impossibility of exercising comprehensive control over political leaders;

Political passivity of the broad masses of the population, whose interests usually lie outside the sphere of politics.

The elite is internally differentiated. It is divided into ruling, directly in power, and non-ruling, opposition.

According to the volume of power functions, the following levels of the ruling elite are distinguished:

The highest political elite makes the most significant decisions for the whole society (the top leaders of public authorities, immediate environment president, monarch, prime minister, speaker of parliament, leaders of leading political parties, political factions in parliament);

The average political elite is formed from elected officials (parliamentarians, senators, deputies, governors, mayors, leaders of political parties and socio-political movements, heads of constituencies);

The lower political elite is formed by local politicians (heads and deputies of local authorities, party leaders at the regional level).

The administrative elite (bureaucracy) stands out as an independent group, monopolizing in its hands the technical and organizational means of power. It includes the highest stratum of civil servants, who occupy the highest positions in ministries, departments and other government bodies. The political elite outlines the main goals of the state, and their implementation is entrusted to the bureaucracy. If there is no unity of purpose between them, the bureaucracy can sabotage the implementation of any general plan. Generally, though not always, the position of the bureaucracy in political systems is more stable than that of the political elite.

Sometimes in political systems there are situations when, having reached a high level of power, the political elite and the bureaucratic apparatus are so towering over society that they completely try to avoid its control. The result is a dangerous phenomenon called political alienation.

The American political scientist and economist Anthony Downes (b. 1930) argues that bureaucracy is characterized by a combination of problems of "leakage of power" and "bureaucratic inflexibility." Since there are many conflicting interests and control within the bureaucratic organization is imperfect, there is a weakening of the power of the authorities as their orders move down the hierarchical ladder to those to whom they are intended. This "leak of power" is being compensated by increasing centralization, internal specialization, and the adoption of various regulatory rules, which increases the rigidity of the entire bureaucratic structure.

Elites are the bearers of the most pronounced managerial qualities. Elitism eliminates the averageness of people, reflects competitiveness, competition in the field political life. According to various estimates, the number of political elites in different countries does not exceed 2-4 thousand people. This is a very narrow, not numerous stratum of society.

The most important criteria for the effectiveness of the activities of the political elite are: the achieved level of progress and well-being of the broad masses of the population, the political stability of society; national security, the optimal ratio between civil society and the state.

The functions of the political elite are diverse, complex and associated with great responsibility. The most significant of them are the following:

1) Management and management of society. The political elite is the main reserve of leading personnel for political, economic, administrative, cultural, etc. management. By controlling a wide variety of resources, the political elite has the ability to influence the living conditions of people.

2) Strategic function. The political elite develops strategies and tactics for the development of society, determines the political program of action, and develops the concepts of urgent reforms. This function is fully implemented at the highest level of the political elite.

3) Mobilizing function. To implement the strategic course of the political elite, it is necessary to organize the masses to put political decisions into practice.

4) Communicative function. The political programs of the elite should reflect the opinions, interests, needs of various social groups and strata of society. The political elite must be able to see the peculiarities of the moods of various social communities, respond to changes public opinion and make appropriate decisions in a timely manner. This function should also ensure the operation of communication channels with the masses, which include the media, PR services, sociological centers, etc.

5) Integrative function. It is designed to ensure the stability of public life, remove acute contradictions and conflicts. To do this, the actions of the political elite should be aimed at rallying various segments of the population, harmonizing and coordinating social interests, reaching consensus and cooperation with political opponents.

It should be noted that the content and boundaries of the functions that the political elite is called upon to perform are determined by the constitution of the country, other regulations. The content of functions is also significantly influenced by political regime of this state.

The main features of the political elite are the possession of power and the monopolization of the right to make decisions.

If we take into account that societies of all types are usually divided into two “strata” in their internal structure: the minority that rules and the majority that is ruled, then the minority that rules is called the political elite. Moreover, the rule of this minority is different structural constancy: when changing (changing) the personal composition of the elite, its power relations in its essence have always been and remain unchanged. It is known that in the course of history, tribal leaders, slave owners, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, parliamentarians and ministers, etc., were replaced, but the relationship of domination and subordination between the elite and the masses has always been preserved and is still preserved, for there has never been a people that would govern itself, and there never will be. And any government, even the most democratic, is in fact oligarchic, i.e. the rule of the few over the many.

Attention should also be paid to such a characteristic of the elite as its internal differentiation. The elite is divided into the ruling one, i.e. directly possessing state power, and non-ruling, opposition. The latter is covered by the concept "counter-elite".

There is also such a thing as "sub-elite". They designate various subspecies of the ruling elite. In addition to the actual political elite (the highest political and state functionaries), this category includes “captains of industry” (heads of large corporations), “lords of war” (the highest army and police hierarchy), holders of “spiritual power” (priests, intellectuals, writers, etc.). .), "leaders of the masses" (leaders of parties and trade unions), etc.

Types of political elites

Question. Concept and typology of political leadership.

Political leadership- long-term influence on large groups of people, based on the personal authority of the leader.

Quite often, a political leader is the head of an organization - a political party, social movement, state, etc. However, the meanings of the concepts "leadership" and "leadership" do not coincide. Leadership is the possession of a formal right to make decisions, which does not necessarily imply authority. A real leader may not enjoy authority and respect: in this case, he will not be a leader. The leader, in turn, may not hold leadership positions, and such a leader is called informal. The best prospects for effective political activity are found in a person who is both in a leadership position and an authoritative leader.

The ability to lead implies that a person has such qualities as intelligence, intuition, organizational skills, willingness to take responsibility, the ability to please the public.

The Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his work "The Sovereign" described in detail the main requirements for a person who wants to become a political leader: he needs to be able to avoid hatred and inspire confidence; regardless of real actions, he should be presented to the people as an example of nobility and virtue; he must be prepared to act quickly and brutally when necessary. Depending on the situation, he must change the style of management - to be either cunning, like foxes, or strong, like a lion.

Leader Types

Allocate various types of leadership. In relation to subordinates, authoritarian and democratic leaders are singled out; in terms of scale - national, class, party. In modern political science, several collective types of leader are distinguished:

§ standard-bearer leader, which is distinguished by a special vision of reality, an attractive ideal, a dream that can inspire the masses;

§ servant leader, who, in his activities, is guided by the needs and requirements of his adherents and voters and acts on their behalf;

§ leader trader, who is able to present his ideas attractively, competently convince citizens of the superiority of his ideas over the ideas of others;

§ firefighter leader, which focuses on the most pressing, burning problems and whose actions depend on the specific situation.

Typically, the selected images are not found in their pure form: specific leaders may have a combination of these characteristics in different proportions.

Some leaders are able to captivate people, inspire them to some kind of activity. In this case, they often talk about charisma (from the Greek. charisma - a divine gift, grace) - the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe exceptional giftedness of a person. Charismatic leader others tend to endow with the properties of exclusivity, supernaturalness, infallibility. The right of such a person to be a leader is supported by blind faith, reverence, devotion of people. They believe him not because he said something right, but because it was he who said it. A charismatic leader is able to rally his followers in the face of danger, but he is usually not well suited to solving current affairs. History has also shown many times that charismatic leaders can easily turn into dictators.

Many studies of leadership are based on the typology of legitimate domination developed by M. Weber. Allocate:

1) traditional leadership based on the traditions, customs and habits of followers to obey. Within this type of leadership, the relationship between leaders and followers is based on the personal devotion of the latter to their leader, partly due to tradition, partly due to the arbitrariness of the leader, who is allowed freedom of action based on tradition. Unlimited reverence for the leader is the basis of his legitimacy. The activity of the leader is both based on traditions and limited by them. The withdrawal of subjects from obedience is not connected with resistance to the existing order, but with a protest against the master who violates traditions. Traditional leadership relies on persons: personally dependent on the master, who are in a particularly trusting relationship with the leaders (favorites), legally subordinate to him (vassals);

2) charismatic leadership based on faith in the extraordinary, outstanding qualities of the leader. “Charisma,” Weber noted, denotes a certain quality of a person, considered extraordinary, due to which it is evaluated as gifted with supernatural, superhuman, or at least special powers and properties that are inaccessible to other people. Such a property of personality can be considered as divine. Charismatic leadership arises from the need for revelation, honoring heroes, and relying on a leader;

3) rational-legal (bureaucratic) leadership carried out on the basis of laws and within the framework of laws. Unlike the two previous types, rational-legal leadership is institutionalized to the greatest extent. It is subject to officially established rules, regulations and procedures.

Introduction

1. The concept of "political elite". Classical and modern concepts of political elites
2. Typology of elites and the system of their recruitment
3. Comparative analysis of the Soviet and modern Russian political elites

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

In the regulation of political processes, in determining the strategy, goals and priorities of the policy, an important role belongs to a specific subject of politics - the political elite. It concentrates power in its hands by monopolizing the right to make political decisions.

Ordinary citizens of society, political groups and parties, socio-political movements and organizations act as the object of the political elite's domination. Their willingness to submit depends on the own qualities of the political elite, its legitimacy, as well as on the means of influence that it uses in specific political situations.

The transformation of the elite into an independent political force is associated with significant transformations of the political system, with the formation of the relevant objective factors for its emergence. Essential analysis of these factors was first given in the classical theories of the elite.

1. The concept of "political elite". Classical and modern concepts of political elites

IN recent decades the term "elite" not only firmly entered the scientific sociological and political language, but also went far beyond its limits, becoming commonly used. This term comes from the Latin eligere and French elite- the best, selective, chosen. In political science, the elite refers to groups of people with a high position in society, active in political and other areas of activity, with authority, influence, wealth.

The elite is, first of all, status and intellect, originality of thinking and actions, culture and strength of moral positions. This is a real, and not an imaginary, opportunity to directly or indirectly dispose of the material and technical resources and human potential of the country; this, finally, is the power that provides the opportunity to participate "in decisions of at least national importance." The presented model of the elite is, of course, an ideal, a kind of benchmark by which society should move towards the formation of a worthy and effective state regulation. This is a kind of setting for what should be.

The political elite is not just a group of high-ranking officials and politicians with certain business, professional, political, ideological and moral qualities. This is a social community that concentrates in its hands a significant amount of political, primarily state power, ensures the expression, subordination and embodiment in management decisions of the fundamental interests of various (primarily dominant) classes and strata of society and creates appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of political plans and concepts.

The theory of elites began to be actively developed on turn of XIX-XX centuries such major representatives European political thought, such as G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels They proceeded from the fact that under any form of power, the minority, which V. Pareto called the “elite”, and G. Mosca the “political class”, leads the “incompetent » by the masses.

The outstanding Italian sociologist and political scientist Mosca (1858-1941) tried to prove the inevitable division of any society into two groups unequal in social status and role. In 1896, in the Fundamentals of Political Science, he wrote: “In all societies, from the most moderately developed and barely reached the beginnings of civilization to the enlightened and powerful, there are two classes of persons: the class of rulers and the class of those who are ruled. The first, always relatively small, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys its inherent advantages, while the second, more numerous, is controlled and regulated by the first and supplies it with the material means of support necessary for the viability of the political organism.

Mosca analyzed the problem of the formation of the political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important criterion for entering it is the ability to manage other people, i.e. organizational ability, as well as material, moral and intellectual superiority that distinguishes the elite from the rest of society. Although, on the whole, this stratum is the most capable of governing, however, not all of its representatives are inherent in the best, higher qualities in relation to the rest of the population.

Mosca's concept of political class, having had a great influence on the subsequent development of elite theories, was criticized for some absolutization of the political factor (belonging to the managerial layer) in the social structuring of society, for underestimating the role of the economy. With regard to a modern pluralistic society, such an approach is largely unjustified.

Independently of Mosca, Pareto (1848-1923) developed the theory of political elites around the same time. He, like Mosca, proceeded from the fact that the world at all times was ruled and should be ruled by a chosen minority - an elite endowed with special qualities: psychological (innate) and social (acquired as a result of upbringing and education). In "Treatise on General Sociology" he wrote; “Whether some theorists like it or not, human society is heterogeneous and individuals are different physically, morally and intellectually.” The totality of individuals whose activity in a particular area is distinguished by efficiency, high results, and constitutes the elite.

It is divided into ruling, directly or indirectly (but effectively) participating in governance, and non-ruling - counter-elite - people who have qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have access to leadership because of their social status and various barriers that exist in society for the lower strata.

The ruling elite is internally united and fighting to maintain their dominance. 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).

The changes taking place in society gradually undermine the dominance of one of these types of elite. Thus, the rule of "foxes", effective in relatively calm periods of history, becomes unsuitable in situations requiring decisive action and the use of violence. This leads to the growth of discontent in society and the strengthening of the counter-elite (“lions”), which, with the help of mobilizing the masses, overthrows the ruling elite and establishes its dominance.

R. Michels (1876-1936) made a major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites. He studied the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society. Basically, in solidarity with Mosca in interpreting the causes of elitism, Michels emphasizes organizational skills, as well as organizational structures societies that increase elitism and elevate the ruling stratum.

He concluded that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. The “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” operates in society. Its essence lies in the fact that the development of large organizations, inseparable from social progress, inevitably leads to the oligarchization of the management of society and the formation of an elite, since the leadership of such associations cannot be carried out by all their members.

From the operation of the "law of oligarchic tendencies" Michels drew pessimistic conclusions about the possibilities of democracy in general and the democracy of social democratic parties in particular. He actually identified democracy with the direct participation of the masses in governance.

In the works of Mosca, Pareto and Michels, the concept of the political elite has already received a fairly clear outline. Its most important properties, parameters were outlined, allowing to distinguish and evaluate various elitist theories of modernity.

In the second half of the XX century. a modern approach to the study of the problem of the elitism of society is taking shape.

The Machiavellian school recognizes

• the elitism of any society, which follows from the natural nature of man and society.
• the elite is characterized by special psychological qualities associated with giftedness and upbringing
• group cohesion
• legitimacy of the elite, recognition by the masses of its right to political leadership
• structural constancy of the elite; her dominance relationship is unchanging
• formation and change of elites in the course of the struggle for power.

Value theories (V. Ropke, Ortega y Gasset). The elite is a layer of society endowed with high management abilities. Elite is the result to a greater extent natural selection persons with outstanding qualities and abilities to manage society. The formation of the elite does not contradict the principles of democracy. Social equality of people should be understood as equality of opportunity.

totalitarian elitism. Elite nomenklatura. (M. Djilas, M. Voslensky). For a certain time, a ruling stratum is formed, which is vitally interested in maintaining the totalitarian system, and has many privileges. The formation of personnel is strictly regulated on the basis of the principle of negative selection - it is practically impossible for a decent, highly moral person to pass through the sieve of nomenclature selection.

The concept of elite pluralism (R. Day, S. Keller, O. Stammer, D. Riesman). None of its members is capable of exerting a decisive influence on all areas of life at the same time. In a democracy, power is distributed among various groups of elites who influence decision-making, defending their interests. Competition prevents the formation of a coherent elite group and makes possible control by the masses.

The theory of elite democracy. Neo-elitism (R. Aron, J. Plametats, J. Sartori, P. Bahrakh) understanding of democracy as a competitive struggle of contenders for the leadership of society during an election campaign. The elite does not rule, but directs the masses with their voluntary consent, through free elections.

American historians of political science usually do not distinguish between the theories of elite pluralism and democratic elitism, although these differences do exist, and they are ultimately connected with the divergence of the ideological positions of their supporters, who gravitate towards the liberal (theories of elite pluralism) or conservative (neo-elitism) poles ideologically. - the political spectrum.

radical elitism. Left-liberal concepts (R. Michels, R. Mills). Society is controlled exclusively by one ruling elite. The rule of the people is technically unfeasible: direct democracy is impossible, at least in countries with large populations, and representative democracy inevitably leads to the people losing part of their sovereignty, which is alienated in favor of elected representatives who, due to certain laws, turn into an elite.

The solution to the question - can a society function without a political elite is possible both at the level of political philosophy and political sociology. Within the framework of political philosophy, which is predominantly a normative theory, one can speak of a society without an elite as the ideal of a society in which a high political culture population allows to achieve the maximum involvement of members of society in the management of all public affairs (i.e., to raise the level of the masses to the level of the elite). In the conditions of the information society, its computerization, an effective system of direct and, most importantly, feedback between the governing bodies and all members of society, which allows you to directly and immediately identify and take into account the opinion of all members of society on all issues of social management. It is no coincidence that a number of modern political scientists and sociologists recognize that the widespread introduction of computers (especially for future generations) can contribute to the decentralization of political decisions and the revival of direct democracy. The information society creates conditions for the implementation of the trend of expanding the participation of the masses in the management of the political life of society, for the formation of a competent informed citizen.

2. Typology of elites and the system of their recruitment.

In modern political science, the following classifications of elites by types are distinguished on the basis of certain criteria:

1) Depending on the sources of influence and authority, the elites are divided into: a) hereditary, i.e. those who received their status by inheritance (for example, knighthood or noble aristocracy); b) valuable - i.e. elevated due to the possession of qualities valuable for society (education, authority, high morality); c) powerful - due to the possession of power; d) functional - depending on the profession that performs a specific function in society;

2) In relation to state power:

a) imperious, which includes all those who have power, i.e. "party of power"; b) opposition - i.e. elite groups removed from power and striving to return to it.

3) By the nature of relations with society: a) open - i.e. allowing into its ranks people from the most diverse strata of its society; b) closed - i.e. recruiting new members from its own group or stratum (for example, the nobility);

4) In relation to one or another level of government: a) the highest - government leaders directly involved in making important political decisions; b) medium - members of society with a high status, an elite profession or education (on average, about 5% of the population of any country); c) marginal - people who have high scores in only one or two of the above characteristics: for example, a quality education without a high income, or a high income without a prestigious position or education;

5) According to the style of management and the nature of relations with society: a) democratic - expressing the opinions and interests of the majority, allowing the participation of the broad masses in management; b) authoritarian - imposing its will on the majority and not allowing members of society to exercise control; c) liberal - taking into account the opinions of the ruled and allowing them to participate in the discussion of decisions;

6) By type of activity:

a) the political elite - i.e. those who directly make political decisions (the first persons of the state) and are able to effectively influence politics in their own interests (leading businessmen participating in politics, lobbyists, etc.);

b) economic - large owners, owners of monopolies, directors and managers of the largest private companies;

c) bureaucratic - officials of the highest and middle levels of the apparatus of state power;

d) ideological - leading figures of science and culture, representatives of the clergy and journalists who have a significant impact on public opinion.

Among the conditions that ensure successful functioning and strong political positions ruling elite, commonly referred to as:

1) Representation - a strong connection of a certain segment of the elite with the group that "spawned" it and put forward - for example, the connection of trade union "bosses" with ordinary members of their trade union, party leaders - with grassroots cells and ordinary party members;

2) Efficiency - i.e. the ability of the ruling elite to successfully solve the problems facing society; 3) Integration - i.e. association of various groups of the ruling elite of society or an agreement on certain values ​​or "rules of the game" in order to maintain their own positions and stability in society (pacts, agreements on consent, consensus);

4) Full-fledged recruitment of the elite, i.e. replenishment of its composition, selection of new members to it, taking into account certain requirements for them.

Political scientists identify two main systems for recruiting elites - the guild system and the so-called. entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) systems. The features of the guild system are:

1) Closeness from society, limited access to the elite of new members;

2) New members are recruited mainly from the lower layers of this very same elite;

3) The presence of large restrictions and requirements (filters) for new members entering the elite: education, origin, loyalty, party affiliation, length of service, leadership characteristics;

4) Limited number (circle) of persons selecting new members to the elite; 5) Due to the recruitment (selection) of their own kind, the main socio-psychological features of the existing type of elite are preserved.

The strengths of the guild recruiting system are: the continuity of the composition and maintaining harmony within the elite, cutting off potential oppositionists and internal stability. Its obvious disadvantages are bureaucracy, conformity, difficulty in moving "upward" talented people who are capable of initiating the necessary changes, stagnation and inability to respond to changes in the situation and crises.

The features of the entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) recruiting system, respectively, are:

1) Openness, wide opportunities for people from the widest strata of society to join the elite;

2) A relatively small number of restrictions and requirements for new people recruited into the elite (giftedness, competence, initiative, compliance with moral requirements, etc.);

3) A wide circle of people who select new members to the elite (in the framework of a democracy, they include the majority of society, all the voters of the country);

4) Intense rivalry, competition for the right to occupy leadership positions;

5) Great importance during the selection, they have personal qualities and individual merits of the applicant for a place in the elite.

A similar recruiting system exists in countries with an established democratic form of government. The advantages of the entrepreneurial system are that it values ​​gifted and outstanding people, is open to new leaders and innovations, and is generally controlled by society. Its shortcomings are just as obvious: a high degree of risk and the threat of instability, the danger of sharp confrontation and a split in the elite, the possibility of electing a demagogue and populist, not a professional responsible to society, to a leadership position. At the same time, it should be remembered that even in a democracy, along with elements of the entrepreneurial system, there are elements of the guild selection system: they are responsible for the formation of higher echelons, promotion on the "upper floors" of power and staffing of law enforcement agencies (army, police) and special services.

In the political history of Russia XX - early XXI centuries The ruling elite has repeatedly undergone significant transformations. The first significant "revolutionary-political transformation" in the words of S.A. Granovsky took place in October 1917, when a party of professional revolutionaries came to power. The Bolsheviks monopolized power and established the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the death of V.I. Lenin, a struggle broke out in the ruling elite for the possession of Lenin's legacy, the winner of which was I.V. Stalin. Even under Lenin, a special ruling class was created - the nomenklatura (a list of leadership positions, appointments to which were approved by party bodies). However, it was Stalin who perfected the process of reproduction of the Soviet elite. The nomenclature was built according to a strictly hierarchical principle with a high degree integration based on a common ideology, with a low level of competition and a low degree of conflict between intra-elite groups. In the mid 1980s. the processes of structural disintegration intensified in the ruling elite, which led to an intra-elite value and personnel conflict associated with a change in political course. By the end of the 1980s. the process of rapid formation of a counter-elite begins, which included leaders and activists of various democratic movements, representatives of the creative and scientific intelligentsia. At the same time, there is a change in the mechanism of elite recruitment. Instead of the nomenklatura principle, the democratic principle of election is being affirmed.

German scientist E. Schneider, who studies the political system modern Russia, believes that the new Russian political elite was formed in the bowels of the old Soviet system as a kind of counter-elite in various groups at the federal level. The beginning was laid on May 29, 1990, when B. Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, who also assumed the functions of the head of state. The second step followed after the election of B. Yeltsin as President of Russia on June 12, 1991. B. Yeltsin created his own administration, numbering 1.5 thousand people, and approaching in size the apparatus of the former Central Committee of the CPSU. The third step towards the formation of the central Russian political elite is the election of deputies to the State Duma and the Federation Council on December 12, 1993. The parliamentary elections of 1995 and the presidential elections of 1996 were summed up to the fourth stage. That is, E. Schneider connects the process of forming a new Russian political elite with the election process that has become characteristic of post-Soviet Russia.

An important factor that had far-reaching consequences for the ruling elite was the ban on the CPSU in 1991, which caused the liquidation of the traditional institutions of Soviet power, the liquidation of the institution of the nomenklatura, and the transfer of powers of the union authorities to Russian ones.

Researchers distinguish between two stages in the formation of the post-Soviet elite: "Yeltsin's" and "Putin's". So, O. Kryshtanovskaya - the author of the book "Anatomy of the Russian Elite" - notes that during the nine years of his reign (1991-1999) B. Yeltsin could not integrate the supreme power. At the same time, no state structure has become dominant.

The "Putin" stage is characterized by the elimination of the causes that led to the destruction of the administrative vertical under B. Yeltsin. The new president returned to the federal center a significant amount of power over the regions, expanded the base of support for the center in the field and outlined ways to restore the functioning of the mechanisms for governing the territories, while formally not violating democratic principles. A controlled, orderly system of executive power was created. If under B. Yeltsin power was dispersed, moving from the center to the regions, then under V. Putin, power again began to return to the center, centrifugal tendencies gave way to centripetal ones.

Researchers note that the modern ruling elite of Russia differs from the Soviet one in many ways. important qualities Key words: genesis, recruiting models, socio-professional composition, internal organization, political mentality, nature of relations with society, level of reform potential.

The personal composition of the political elite is changing, but its job structure remains virtually unchanged. The political elite of Russia is represented by the president, the prime minister, members of the government, deputies of the Federal Assembly, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme, Supreme Arbitration Courts, the presidential administration, members of the Security Council, plenipotentiaries of the president in federal districts, heads of power structures in the subjects of the federation, the highest diplomatic and military corps, some other government positions, the leadership of political parties and large public associations, and other influential people.

According to the same surveys, the main suppliers to the ruling elite in 1991 were the intelligentsia (53.5%) and business leaders (about 13%). During the transitional period of Yeltsin's rule (1991-1993), the role of workers, peasants, intellectuals, economic managers, employees of ministries and departments fell. The importance of others, on the contrary, increased: regional administrations, employees of security and law enforcement agencies and, especially, businessmen.

In the absence of state support, weak social groups- workers, peasants - were almost completely ousted from the political field, the share of women and youth, whose high percentage of participation in power was previously artificially supported by the CPSU, fell sharply.

The average age of a regional leader under L. Brezhnev was 59 years, under M. Gorbachev - 52 years, under B. Yeltsin - 49 years, under V. Putin - 54 years.

The changes affected not only the level of education of the elite, but also the nature of education. The Brezhnev elite was technocratic. The vast majority of the leaders of the party and state in the 1980s. had an engineering, military or agricultural education. Under M. Gorbachev, the percentage of technocrats decreased, but not due to an increase in the number of humanitarians, but due to an increase in the proportion of party workers who received higher party education. And, finally, a sharp decrease in the proportion of people who received technical education (almost 1.5 times) occurred under B. Yeltsin. Moreover, this is happening against the backdrop of the same educational system in Russia, where the majority of universities still have a technical profile.

Under V. Putin, the proportion of people in uniform in the ruling elite increased significantly: every fourth representative of the elite became a military man (under B. Yeltsin, the share of military men in the elite was 11.2%, under V. Putin - 25.1%). This trend coincided with the expectations of society, since the reputation of the military as honest, responsible, politically unbiased professionals favorably distinguished them from other elite groups, whose image was associated with theft, corruption, and demagoguery. Main hallmarks Putin's elite was a decrease in the proportion of "intellectuals" with a degree (under B. Yeltsin - 52.5%, under V. Putin - 20.9%), a decrease in the already extremely low representation of women in the elite (from 2.9% up to 1.7%), the “provincialization” of the elite and a sharp increase in the number of the military, who began to be called “siloviki” (representatives of the armed forces, the federal security service, border troops, the Ministry of Internal Affairs).

Two waves of renewal of the upper layers can be distinguished. The first of these was connected with the invasion of the reformers. The second marked the arrival of the counter-reformers, whose actions should be regarded as the normal completion of the reform cycle. IN classic images it looks like this: "young lions" are being driven out by "old foxes".

The acceleration of the circulation of Russian elites is an obvious fact. It began during the reign of M. Gorbachev due to the promotion of numerous representatives of the so-called pre-nomenklatura groups from various public sectors (mostly former middle managers - heads of departments, subdivisions, services).

As studies show, according to most indicators, the nature of appointments and dismissals under V. Putin has undergone minor changes: the age of entry and exit, the average number of years in office, the proportion of persons of retirement age among retirees are approximately the same as under the previous president. But the main thing is that the atmosphere has changed: the growing self-confidence of the political elite, the basis of which is high level public confidence in the president.

Researchers express concern about the existing strategic potential of the elite, which is designed to protect society and improve its well-being. So, T. Zaslavskaya believes that the elite “managed to create such rules of the game that provide it with lack of control and irresponsibility to society. The result is a deepening of the mutual alienation of power and society, which manifests itself, on the one hand, in the indifference of the authorities to the troubles of the people, and on the other hand, in the total distrust of the people in representatives and institutions of power.

Conclusion

Thus, we can conclude that the phenomenon of elites is characteristic of the political experience of all countries and political systems. In a certain way, it reflects the properties of all political practice and its connection with other spheres of public life. The peculiarity of political elites is that, being an expression of political alienation, they tend to deepen and strengthen alienation.

But at the same time, one cannot fail to note the positive role of potential elites in political practice. Their existence ensures appropriate influence of various public sectors on the course of political processes, as well as the opportunity to form relatively strong and responsible leadership teams.

In other words, only the elite are included in the elite, but those who belong to it really influence the course of events, the nature and results of social processes. The political elite is that part of society that has access to the instruments of power. Be that as it may, one should realize that political elites are a real fact.

Bibliography

1. Granovsky S.A. Applied Political Science: Textbook. M., 2004.
2. Zaslavskaya T.I. Contemporary Russian society: social mechanism transformations: Study guide. M., 2004.
3. Panarin A.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.
4. Political Science: Textbook / Ed. A.S. Turgaeva, A.E. Khrenova.- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.
5. Tavadov G. T. Political science: Textbook. - M .: FAIR - PRESS, 2000.
6. Schneider E. Politic system Russian Federation / Per. with him. M., 2002.

Pugachev V.P. Solovyov A.I. Introduction to Political Science, RGIM, 2000

Pugachev V.P. Solovyov A.I. Introduction to Political Science, RGIM, 2000

Political Science: Textbook / Ed. A.S. Turgaeva, A.E. Khrenova.- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.

Granovsky S.A. Applied Political Science: Textbook. M., 2004. P.97.

Schneider E. The political system of the Russian Federation / Per. with him. M., 2002. S.211.

Kryshtanovskaya O. Anatomy of the Russian elite. M., 2005. P.235.

Zaslavskaya T.I. Modern Russian Society: The Social Mechanism of Transformation: Textbook. M., 2004. P.289.

Kryshtanovskaya O. Anatomy of the Russian elite. M., 2005. S.17-18, 146-153.

Zaslavskaya T.I. Modern Russian Society: The Social Mechanism of Transformation: Textbook. M., 2004. S.294-295.

comparison lines	Non-democratic society	Democratic Society
Who is part of the political elite.	A closed selection system based on kinship, acquaintance, personal loyalty, possession of wealth, military power, political connections.	An open selection system based on electivity and clearly defined legal regulations. Lets take away people with important qualities for the management of society.
degree of cohesion	The elite is cohesive because pursues its own selfish interests.	The degree of cohesion of the elite is low. There are several political elites that compete with each other for the right to make managerial decisions. They make compromises, fight for votes.
The relationship between the elite and the masses	Political elite closed, persecuted interests and cares little about the public good. Methods of influence are often based on force. The relationship between the political elite and the disenfranchised masses can be characterized as domination and submission.	The line between the elite and the masses is blurred. The competition of elites, the mechanism of elections does not allow breaking away from the voters. The relationship between the political elite and the masses is a relationship of representation, in a number of areas - direct leadership based on the consent of the governed.
Elite formation (recruitment) system	Important political posts are occupied according to the principle of appointment "from above" (the system of guilds). The basis for the formation of the elite is a gradual movement up the bureaucratic ladder. The decision to raise is made by a narrow circle of leaders, and the decision-making process is closed to society. The elite is made up of representatives of the ruling social strata of society.	The main mechanism that allows the elite to become ruling is elections. Access to power is given to people who have special personal qualities and activity, can captivate the voter, are professionally literate, and have outstanding abilities. Such a system allows young and capable leaders to enter politics.
Tasks of the political elite	Ensuring and maintaining their own dominance, access to economic wealth, therefore, other tasks are solved insofar as it is necessary to retain power.	The elite is guided primarily by the public interest. Even unpopular measures are aimed at the benefit of society.

A political elite that is useful to society must be formed using democratic procedures, be controlled by society and effectively carry out the tasks assigned to it.

4. In political science, factors are distinguished that determine the degree of control of the elite by society:

· regime of publicity and information openness of the authorities;

· a developed civil society, the presence of public organizations that control the actions of the authorities;

organization of alternative elites (opposition parties, pressure groups, etc.) fighting for power;

professionalization of management, when the conservative bureaucracy limits the arbitrariness of a politician;

· such an organization of power that makes different segments of the elite compete with each other (separation of powers, competition between central and local authorities).

A political elite that meets these requirements appears to be useful to society.

The most important legal regulations regulating the position of the political elite in society:

· the separation of powers makes different parts of the elite compete with each other;

· electability of people's representatives and the President;

Responsibility of state officials limits the arbitrariness of power.

· Legislation on political parties provides for a multi-party system and political competition;

· Legislation on the media, securing freedom of the media.

Political parties and movements

1. Political Party - this is an organized group of like-minded people, expressing the interests of certain social strata and striving to achieve certain political goals (the conquest of state power or participation in its implementation).

Any political party has a number of characteristics.

Features political party

4. The carrier of a certain ideologies or a special vision of the world and man.

5. Focus on conquest and fulfillment authorities.

6. Availability political program, i.e., a document in which the goals and objectives of the party are formulated both in terms of participation in political life, and in case the party comes to power.

7. Availability organizations (governing bodies, membership, Availability party charter).

8. Availability an extensive network of local organizations, the core of which is formed by volunteer activists.

In political science, there are numerous classifications that can ultimately be used to describe any party.