The elite of society in any period of the history of human civilization has played and is playing a primary role in the formation and functioning of the institutions of a particular human society.

Roughly speaking, the state elite, as the dominant social stratum (class) of society, is called upon to provide direct impact on the essence, character, capabilities and guidelines of society as a whole.

Where does the “elite of society” in the classical sense begin?

First of all, this is a certain group located at the top of the conventional pyramid of social classes and strata.

Secondly, the elite must have clearly defined and defined guidelines. A specific and general Idea, Goal, Task - this is what unites the elite, makes it the very “elite of society”, which receives a universal and complex tool in the form of that very society for solving and achieving specific tasks and goals (I would like to immediately note that the ideology of fascism , which has a similar model of building public institutions with the formation of a social elite, is not meant here).

The elite of society is a designer, a foreman, a supplier, and a foreman at a construction site. What ultimately comes out - the Tower of Babel or the Taj Mahal - depends on her competent actions during construction.

The elite should not make vital social processes chaotic. The elite is a shepherd, the elite is a guiding star, the elite is a bearer of spiritual, moral potential. And it should not dissipate its original essence.

In reality, there must be obvious and hidden mechanisms for the formation of such an elite. What is the elite of the modern Russian Federation like?

Firstly, like any other elite, it is divided into two main groups: the power (political) elite, which exercises direct control over state institutions, as well as over political and social processes; the secular elite, which is a potential bearer of spiritual and moral guidelines, setting the main directions of spiritual development for the rest of society. What is the character and essence of each of these elites?

The political elite is a special social group, just like any other professional group, which has its own corporate interests and its own corporate consciousness. However, there are no special reasons to consider it a separate class. The political elite is formed from representatives of not all social strata and classes, but only those of them that can be classified as the highest politicized stratum of society.

In the modern Russian Federation, such a layer of society is a gigantic bureaucratic apparatus with a well-functioning bureaucratic machine. A modern official is one of the most permanent, “reliable” and sought-after “recruits” in the system of forming the power elite. In addition to “His Majesty the official,” the modern large industrial and raw materials bourgeoisie, large owners of natural monopolies, and a small part of the secular intelligentsia take part in the formation of the power elite. But the determining role is still played by bureaucratic officials. There is nothing surprising in this fact. Rather, this is a familiar picture of the structure of any state.

What are the priorities of the power elite of the Russian Federation in concrete actions in practice?

Of course, these are the modern world generally accepted economic “market values”. Russia has long been integrated into the circulatory dollar system of the world economy and has taken a not particularly honorable place there. Based on this fact, the real actions of the Russian power elite are built.

In simplified terms, the main problems that the power elite seeks to solve are maintaining power in the state by any means and harmonious coexistence in the economic sphere with the world system. The remaining issues are of secondary importance. Thus, it becomes obvious that such an elite lacks clear moral guidelines in the formation of society, the absence of a clear Goal and Idea at the state-national level (this is despite the prevailing rhetoric of “patriots” in the last few years, which is designed to create the illusion of the emergence of such Goals and Ideas), which was mentioned above, in the construction of institutions of such a society, vagueness of criteria and assessments of their activities, lack of awareness of their pastoral mission. That is, the rest of the social processes that do not relate to the two above-mentioned problems are, by and large, left to chance. Those problems that arise from such gravity are solved by the power elite not as the reason for their appearance, but as a consequence. And he solves it using a predominantly wide range of violent actions. Therefore, the structure of state institutions is built on the same principle. This is how we can briefly characterize the power elite of the modern Russian Federation.

The main problems of such a society are the absence of the role of society in direct control over the formation of the power elite, the absence of a conventional institution of “orderlies” who will be able to separate and isolate the “black sheep” and, finally, the absence of real common goals and objectives of the power elite with society. Unfortunately, the created and artificially cultivated consumer society has nothing to do with the national interests of Russia and its future generations.

The secular elite of the modern Russian Federation is also imbued with the spirit of corporatism and opportunism. She is absolutely divorced, “stewing” in her own juice, from the real life of society. However, in general, she is inclined to talk about her “invaluable influence” on various processes occurring in society, pathetically place herself at the forefront of control over such processes, and flaunt her “missionary” pseudo-idea.

The secular elite, consisting of the creative intelligentsia and public figures, is, at first glance, a very politically amorphous environment. In fact, the power elite actually imposes such amorphousness on the secular elite. This is all done for the same precise control over the two above-mentioned problems. After all, if the secular elite takes steps aimed at active participation in political life country, it will certainly attract serious attention and cause an awakening from hibernation of all the main social strata of society. And this already calls into question the retention of power by the modern power elite and peaceful coexistence with the global economic system. So it is obvious that the power elite tried to forever deprive the secular elite of its original essence, the essence of the “salt of the Russian soil,” an intercessor for the common people (this is what it really was in the 19th and 20th centuries).

Otherwise, the secular elite, which does not get involved in solving internal political and economic problems, is given a wide range of freedoms, a whole system of pretentious and lulling incentives, honors, attention, etc. The secular elite, like a river that suddenly changed its usual course, created a whole distorted world of abstract reality, “universal human values ​​of a civilized community,” slutty glamor, reeking of expensive champagne and show business cocaine. All this is presented to the rest of society as a real revelation of new theologians, the ultimate truth.

Thus, in the modern Russian Federation, the root cause of all problems and social disorders is the absence of a real national state-forming elite of society. No, of course, today’s elite is also a completely real elite - it manages, manages, and solves problems that are important to it. But this elite has nothing to do with the real interests of Russia, its future generations. But this is the first indicator of the quality and capacity of the elite of society during critical episodes of human history. It’s just that such truly critical moments have not yet arisen before modern elite RF. I am sure that as soon as such problems appear, such an elite will not be able to solve them.

Ideally, such problems in the future, as I think, should be solved by a group of desperate brave “extremists”, “intellectual scumbags” led by a Teacher or Leader, through the accompanying events of a dramatically changing reality and the very crisis situation that will be proclaimed in words and words. matter: “I tell you the truth: it must be so!”

One thing must be remembered - the elite, in its original essence, represents the skeleton of any society. Therefore, it should be formed neither according to clan, nor according to matchmaker-friendly, nor according to any other principles, except the principle of usefulness and devotion to a common Idea, a common Goal, for the sake of which it will not be a pity to sacrifice one’s own life.

With the political bankruptcy of the CPSU in Russia, socio-economic and political mobility increased significantly. If earlier, during the period of dominance of the party-state nomenklatura in the USSR, there was a closed system of formation (from a narrow privileged layer), then under the conditions of the reforms that began, the old system of formation of elites was basically destroyed. Representatives from the lower social strata of society also began to apply for the newly emerged political “vacancies”.

However, the old Soviet nomenklatura was in no hurry to give up its positions. She quickly moved away from the ideas of socialism and communism, which she had so persistently preached just recently, and, in fact, led the transition of the former Soviet society to a “new” capitalist society. Thus, in most of the former Soviet republics that became independent sovereign states, the presidential post was occupied by representatives of the former highest Soviet nomenklatura.

Most Russian regions () were also headed by local Soviet-style party and state elites. And the entourage of the Russian President in the early 90s. 75% consisted of representatives of the former Soviet nomenklatura.

A separate social group, from whose representatives a new political elite was also formed, can be identified the so-called business executives (the directorial corps), who managed to “privatize” enterprises and entire industries that were previously under their formal control. These include the so-called former “shadow workers” who had experience in semi-legal entrepreneurial activity, which, in the conditions of economic liberalization, contributed to their rapid economic growth and political weight.

Along with the old party-state nomenklatura and business executives, the role of the new Russian political elite prete ndo vat and the most active and ambitious representatives of various strata of society. For example, representatives of the scientific intelligentsia, mainly with economic and legal education, became active participants in state and party building and the main ideological and theoretical developers and conductors of liberal-democratic, market reforms that were new to post-Soviet Russia.

During development (transformation) political system in the 90s XX century and at the beginning of the 21st century. the social composition of the political elite and the relative weight of the political influence of various groups of politicians and political institutions is changing. The dynamics of changes in the political influence of various groups of politicians are presented in Table. 2.

Table 2. Share of political influence in 1993-2002, %

Let's consider each of those presented in the table. 2 group of politicians and try to analyze the reasons and dynamics of their transformation.

IN first group politicians include the President of the Russian Federation, his assistants, advisers, authorized representatives in federal districts, heads of the Security Council and other bodies formed under the President of the Russian Federation.

In 1993, the share of the first group was 18.4% of the total volume of political influence. In 1994, there was an increase in the influence of the first group (20.4%). This was due, firstly, to the shooting of the White House and the dispersal of the first Russian parliament in October 1993; secondly, by the adoption on December 12, 1993 of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which the President of the Russian Federation is endowed with almost unlimited powers.

Subsequently, until 2000, there was a decline in the influence of the first group of politicians, which in 1999 amounted to only 12.2%. The reasons for such a significant drop are as follows: a) ineffective external and domestic politics the president and his entourage; b) defeat in the first Chechen war (1994-1996); a general decline in the rating of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin (by the end of 1999 it was approximately 5%).

With the elections in 2000 to the post of President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, a consistent growth in the political influence of the first group of politicians began, which is associated primarily with the general strengthening of the vertical of power: the introduction of the institution of authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in administrative districts (2000); abolition of direct elections of heads of constituent entities of the Russian Federation (governors, presidents) and the introduction of a procedure for their nomination (appointment) by the President of the Russian Federation with subsequent approval of the proposed candidacy by the local representative body of government (2004); limiting the political influence of other political groups and institutions (parliament, funds mass media, “oligarchs”, heads of regions).

Second group of politicians— heads of the Government of the Russian Federation and major ministries (except for the security forces) traditionally have significant political influence in Russia. The strengthening of the influence of the second group of politicians, as a rule, occurred during periods of weakening of the political influence of the first group (1996 and 1999). In general, in 2002, the political influence of the elites heading the main executive institutions of power (groups 1, 2, 3) amounted to 54.1%. In subsequent years, their influence continued to grow. A particularly noticeable strengthening of all three of these groups of politicians occurred in November 2005 after significant personnel changes and appointments carried out by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin. Then the Government of the Russian Federation was strengthened by two additional deputy prime ministers.

TO the third group of “sipovik” politicians include the heads of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Russian Ministry of Justice, the State Customs Committee, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, various special services, as well as commanders of military districts. The share of political influence of the third group ranged from 8% in 1999 to 13.8% in 2000. A significant increase in the influence of the “siloviki” in 1994-1995. explained by the beginning of the first Chechen war. Then there was a significant period (1996-1999) of decline in the political influence of the “siloviki”, which was largely due to the defeat of the federal troops in Chechnya and the subsequent structural changes and personnel changes in the security forces.

The beginning of the second Chechen war (August 1999) and certain successes of the federal troops, as well as the election of V.V. Putin as President of the Russian Federation in 2000, a native of the security forces, significantly increased the relative weight of the political influence of the “siloviki”.

In subsequent years, the share of the political influence of the “siloviki” decreased slightly (2002 - 11.8%), but overall remained at a fairly high level; in 2004-2007 there was a tendency to increase. During these years, funding for security forces was significantly increased, and the state's attention to the problems of the security forces increased.

The reasons for the growing influence of the third group of politicians are seen in the following: the need to fight terrorism; the ruling elite's fear of the threat of a “color revolution”; the general military threat from various external forces and the urgent need to strengthen the country's defense capabilities.

Dynamics of changes in political influence fourth group of politicians - parliament (without party leaders) is quite natural for a state in which the executive branch dominates. Parliament had a significant share of political influence only in 1993, 1994 and 1995, when the State Duma and the Federation Council tried to resist the dictatorship executive power. In subsequent years, there was a sharp decline in the political influence of parliament (1996 - 8.3%; 2002 - 5.3%), which can be explained by the following reasons.

Firstly, the subordinate position of the State Duma is already laid down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which the President of the Russian Federation can dissolve the State Duma after it three times rejects candidates for the post of Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation submitted by the President of the Russian Federation (Article 111) or in the event of an expression of no confidence in the Government of the Russian Federation (Art. 117). Therefore, facing the threat of dissolution, the Duma is ready to approve any bills proposed by the President and the Government of the Russian Federation.

Secondly, the majority of subjects of the Russian Federation are subsidized, that is, dependent on the executive power of the Russian Federation, and the members they delegate to the Federation Council are also forced to be “loyal” to the President and the Government of the Russian Federation. In addition, with the strengthening of the vertical power and the weakening of the political influence of the regions (especially after the introduction of the procedure for “appointing” the heads of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation), the Federation Council finally lost its former political influence.

Thirdly, since the mid-90s. XX century The parliament of the Russian Federation became the arena of fierce clashes between various political groups, which, using various ways putting pressure on legislators, lobbying for the adoption (non-adoption) of the laws they need. In order to maintain their status or in pursuit of their selfish interests, members of parliament often adopt (postpone adoption) laws ordered by one or another pressure group. For example, in 2001, a law was passed on amnesty for convicts with government awards. As a result, many hundreds of dangerous criminals were released; in December 2003, Art. 52 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which all illegally acquired funds were subject to confiscation. As a result, criminals and corrupt officials no longer fear for the goods they stole; At the same time, the adoption of the law on corruption has been delayed for more than 15 years. Such “lawmaking” does not add authority and political influence to parliament.

Share of political influence fifth group of politicians— representatives of political parties until the mid-90s. XX century was very significant (1993 - 10.3%; 1995 - 10.5%). However, in the second half of the 90s. and at the beginning of the 21st century. There was a gradual decline in the political influence of parties. Thus, in December 2004, only 5% of Russians trusted political parties, in September 2005 - 7%. The reason for this phenomenon is seen in the following: parties do not have effective levers of influence on real politics; a decrease in the influence of representative bodies of power, which, as a rule, they are formed from the party elite; the restriction of pluralism in society has significantly reduced the political field for parties in opposition.

The so-called party in power, United Russia, deserves special praise. Thanks to its powerful administrative resources, it won 37% of the votes in the 2003 parliamentary elections and became dominant in the State Duma, capable of single-handedly adopting or rejecting federal laws. In December 2007, 64.3% of voters voted for United Russia. The basis " United Russia“are made up of senior government officials, whose number in all ranks is rapidly increasing, since membership in the party is becoming almost a prerequisite for a successful career. Thus, if in 2003 the party consisted of approximately 30 leaders of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (presidents, governors), then at the end of 2007 their number increased to 70. Therefore, the political influence of United Russia lies not so much in the party potential, but in the administrative , a state resource. This position of the party leaders turns it into an element of the system government controlled, rather than a representative political institution.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation legislated the federal structure of Russia. Regional elites received significant powers to govern their regions. In some regions of the Russian Federation, there was an increase in separatist sentiments. The federal government, weakened by its internal conflicts, failures to carry out reforms and the war in Chechnya, did not pay due attention to regional policy. Therefore, from 1994 to 1999 inclusive, the share of political influence sixth group of politicians - representatives of regional elites can be assessed as significant.

In 2000, the President of the Russian Federation took decisive measures to strengthen the vertical power:

• authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation are introduced in the federal districts;
• is installed new order formation of the Federation Council (the heads of the executive and legislative powers of the regions are no longer included in the Federation Council as its members, but appoint their representatives);
• provides for the recall of leaders and termination of powers of government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government;
• the introduction of direct presidential rule in the regions is envisaged;
• measures are being taken to restore and strengthen a unified legal framework throughout the Russian Federation.

All these measures contributed to increasing the political influence of the executive bodies of the Russian Federation and reducing the influence of regional elites. With the beginning of the application of the procedure for appointing heads of constituent entities of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation (2005), the political influence of regional elites decreased even more.

In conditions of democratization and openness since the beginning of the 90s. there was an increase in political influence seventh group of politicians - representatives of the media, journalists (1993 - 2.3%, 1998 - 5.7%). However, soon there is a sharp decrease in their influence (2001 - 1.7%, 2002 - 0%). The reason for this dynamics is seen in the fact that simultaneously with the beginning of the strengthening of the vertical of power executive bodies The Russian Federation has launched a systematic “offensive” against independent media and opposition-minded journalists. Television suffered especially significant damage. Thus, from 2000 to 2005, such television channels as NTV, TV-6, TVS lost their independence (they were repurposed); such popular television programs as “Results”, “Dolls”, “Freedom of Speech”, “Voice of the People”, “Duel”, “Basic Instinct”, etc. were taken off the air. Many famous journalists were forced to leave television.

Political influence eighth group of politicians -“oligarchs” began to appear only in the second half of the 90s, when, as a result of the privatization of state property, a small group of people close to B. N. Yeltsin acquired billions of dollars and began to directly influence political processes. This was also facilitated by the poor health of the President of the Russian Federation and his dependence on the so-called “family” - a close circle of people.

Second half of the 90s. XX century and the beginning of the 21st century. Many researchers and politicians call the period of oligarchic rule in Russia. Only in 2004, President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, elected for a second term, decided to strike a significant blow at the “oligarchs”, who began to pose a direct threat to him and his team. The initiation of a criminal case against the Yukos oil company and the trial of its leaders reduced the political influence of the “oligarchs” and forced them to be more loyal to state power (not counting those who immigrated to the West).

Concerning ninth group of politicians - heads of judicial and financial bodies, etc., then it should be said that the significant influence of the judiciary in 1993 can be explained by the fact that in the dispute between the President of the Russian Federation and the Russian parliament, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation acted as an arbiter. The new increase in the political influence of the judiciary since 2000 is due to the fact that with the coming to power of V.V. Putin and his team, a new redistribution of property begins, in which the courts also play a significant role. In addition, the courts began to be used by the authorities to persecute the opposition and exclude undesirable candidates and parties from participating in elections.

The growth in the political influence of financial authorities since 2000 is due to the fact that, as a result of high oil prices and increased tax revenues, financial revenues to the country's budget and the stabilization fund have increased significantly.

When analyzing the political influence of certain representatives of the elite, the qualitative characteristics of the assessment are important. A positive assessment means that this representative of the elite uses his influence for the benefit of society and the state, and a negative assessment means Negative influence. Thus, in May 2005, out of the 20 most influential representatives of the ruling elite, the activities of A. A. Kudrin - Minister of Finance, V. Yu. Surkov - Deputy. Head of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, R. A. Abramovich - Governor of Chukotka, A. B. Chubais - Head of RAO UES, B. V. Gryzlov - Speaker of the State Duma, V. V. Ustinov - Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, V. P. Ivanov - Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation was assessed with a negative influence.

Ordinary Russian citizens have a slightly different idea of ​​the political influence of elites in Russia. During a sociological survey conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in November 2005, citizens were asked the question: “In whose hands is the real power in Russia?” The answers were distributed as follows: people - 0.8%; parliament - 2.8%; Government of Russia - 7.2%; Western circles - 8.7%; “security officials” - 12.6%; Russian bureaucracy - 15.6%; president - 18.9%; oligarchs - 32.4%.

In the data presented, it is noteworthy that the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, who had a very high rating in 2005 (within 65-75%), occupies only second position (18.9%), and in first place oligarchs are far behind (32.4%). It is possible that many Russians have this opinion because oligarchs and natural monopolies continue to increase their capital, while there is almost no real improvement in the lives of ordinary citizens and most of the promises of the President of the Russian Federation remain only good wishes.

The survey data also indicate that the people are actually removed from power (0.8%). Consequently, the elite rules the country without any control from below, pursuing primarily its own interests, not paying attention to the requests and demands of the people. Therefore, most crimes committed by representatives of the ruling elite remain unpunished.

In modern Russia, in fact, a situation has developed where the people and the ruling elite exist, as it were, in parallel worlds, without intersecting with each other. One world is a world of unbridled enrichment and provocative luxury; another world - a world of humiliating poverty and hopelessness. But this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. A protest potential is maturing in society, which can cause serious social upheaval.

Introduction. 3

The emergence of the concept and theory of political elites. 4

The main directions of modern elite theory. 6

Typology of elites. 14

Functions of the political elite. 16

Political elite in Russia. Types of political elite. 16

Features of the political elite in Russia. 18

The structure of the political elite in Russia. 20

Conclusion. 22

Bibliography. 24

Introduction.

Politics, which is one of the spheres of society, is carried out by people who have power resources or political capital. These people are called the political class, for whom politics becomes a profession. The political class is the ruling class, since it is engaged in governance and manages the resources of power. Its main difference is its institutionalization, which consists in the system of government positions occupied by its representatives. The formation of a political class is carried out in two ways: appointment to public office (such representatives of the political class are called bureaucracy) and through elections to certain government structures.

The political class forms the elite and at the same time is the source of its replenishment. The elite not only rules society, but also controls the political class, and also creates such forms of state organization in which its positions are exclusive. The elite is a full-fledged social group with a complex structure. The political elite is a relatively small layer of people occupying leadership positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations, etc. and influencing the development and implementation of policies in the country. This is an organized minority, a controlling group that has real political power, the ability to influence all functions and political actions of society without exception.

The emergence of the concept and theory of elites.

The political elite is a relatively small social group that concentrates in its hands a significant amount of political power, ensures integration, subordination and reflection of the interests of various sectors of society in political attitudes and creates a mechanism for the implementation of political plans. In other words, the elite is the highest part of a social group, class, political social organization.

The word "elite" translated from French means "best", "selected", "chosen". In everyday language it has two meanings. The first of them reflects the possession of some intense, clearly and maximally expressed features, the highest on a particular scale of measurements. In this meaning, the term “elite” is used in such phrases as “elite grain”, “elite horses”, “sports elite”, “elite troops”. In the second meaning, the word “elite” refers to the best, most valuable group for society, standing above the masses and called upon, due to the possession of special qualities, to control them. This understanding of the word reflected the reality of a slave-owning and feudal society, the elite of which was the aristocracy. (The term “aristos” means “the best”; aristocracy means “the power of the best.”) In political science, the term “elite” is used only in the first, ethically neutral meaning. Defined in the most general form, this concept characterizes the bearers of the most pronounced political and managerial qualities and functions. The theory of elites seeks to eliminate leveling, averaging in assessing the influence of people on power, reflects the unevenness of its distribution in society, competitiveness and rivalry in the field of political life, its hierarchy and dynamism. The scientific use of the category “political elite” is based on well-defined general ideas about the place and role of politics and its direct bearers in society. The theory of the political elite proceeds from the equality and equivalence or even priority of politics in relation to the economy and social structure of society. Therefore, this concept is incompatible with the ideas of economic and social determinism, represented, in particular, by Marxism, which treats politics merely as a superstructure over the economic base, as a concentrated expression of the economy and class interests. Because of this, and also due to the reluctance of the ruling nomenklatura elite to be the object of scientific research, the concept of the political elite in Soviet social science was viewed as pseudoscientific and bourgeois-tendentious and was not used in a positive sense.

Initially, in political science, the French term “elite” became widespread at the beginning of the 20th century. thanks to the works of Sorel and Pareto, although the ideas of political elitism arose outside of France in ancient times. Even during the time of the disintegration of the tribal system, views appeared that divided society into higher and lower, noble and rabble, aristocracy and common people. These ideas received the most consistent justification and expression from Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, Carly, and Nietzsche. However, this kind of elitist theories have not yet received any serious sociological justification. The first modern, classical concepts of elites arose in late XIX- early 20th century They are associated with the names of Gaetano Moschi, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels.

The characteristic features of the political elite are the following:

• this is a small, fairly independent social group;
• high social status;
• a significant amount of state and information power;
• direct participation in the exercise of power;
• organizational skills and talent.

The political elite is the reality of the current stage of development of society and is determined by the action of the following main factors:

· Psychological and social inequality of people, their unequal abilities, opportunities and desires to participate in politics.

· The law of division of labor requires professional management.

· High importance of managerial work and its corresponding stimulation.

· Wide possibilities for using management activities to obtain various kinds of social privileges.

· The practical impossibility of exercising comprehensive control over political leaders.

· Political passivity of the broad masses of the population.

The main directions of modern elite theory.

Machiavellian school.

The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto and Michels gave impetus to broad theoretical and subsequently (mainly after the Second World War) empirical studies of groups that lead the state or pretend to do so. Modern theories of elites are varied. Historically, the first group of theories that have not lost modern significance are the concepts of the Machiavellian school. They are united by the following ideas:

1. Special qualities of the elite, associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to govern or at least to fight for power.

2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of a group, united not only by a common professional status, social status and interests, but also by an elite self-awareness, the perception of itself as a special layer called upon to lead society.

3. Recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. This division naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite changes, its dominant relationship to the masses is fundamentally unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, tribal leaders, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents were replaced, but the relations of dominance and subordination between them and the common people always remained.

4. Formation and change of elites during the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities strive to occupy a dominant privileged position. However, no one wants to voluntarily give up their posts and positions to them. Therefore, a hidden or overt struggle for a place in the sun is inevitable.

5. In general, the constructive, leading and dominant role of the elite in society. She does what is necessary for social system management function, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and pass on their privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate and lose its outstanding qualities.

Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, anti-democracy and underestimation of the abilities and activity of the masses, insufficient consideration of the evolution of society and the modern realities of welfare states, and a cynical attitude towards the struggle for power. Such criticism is largely not without foundation.

Value theories.

The value theories of the elite are trying to overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellians. They, like Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, however, they soften their position in relation to democracy and strive to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern states. The diverse value concepts of the elites differ significantly in the degree of protection of aristocracy, attitude towards the masses, democracy, etc. However, they also have a number of the following common settings:

1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and performance in the most important areas of activity for the entire society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on satisfying its most important needs. In the course of development, many old needs, functions and value orientations die out in society and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the bearers of the most important qualities for their time by new people who meet modern requirements.

2. The elite is relatively united on a healthy basis of the leadership functions it performs. This is not an association of people seeking to realize their selfish group interests, but cooperation of individuals who care, first of all, about the common good.

3. The relationship between the elite and the masses is not so much in the nature of political or social domination, but rather of leadership, implying managerial influence based on the consent and voluntary obedience of the governed and the authority of those in power. The leading role of the elite is likened to the leadership of the elders, who are more knowledgeable and competent in relation to the younger ones, who are less knowledgeable and experienced. It meets the interests of all citizens.

4. The formation of an elite is not so much the result of a fierce struggle for power, but rather a consequence of the natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives. Therefore, society should strive to improve the mechanisms of such selection, to search for a rational, most effective elite in all social strata.

5. Elitism is a condition for the effective functioning of any society. It is based on the natural division of managerial and executive labor, naturally follows from equality of opportunity and does not contradict democracy. Social equality should be understood as equality of life chances, and not equality of results and social status. Since people are not equal physically, intellectually, in their vital energy and activity, then for democratic state it is important to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will reach the finish line at different times and with different results. Social “champions” and underdogs will inevitably emerge.

Value ideas about the role of the elite in society prevail among modern neoconservatives, who argue that elitism is necessary for democracy. But the elite itself must serve as a moral example for other citizens and inspire respect for itself, confirmed in free elections.

Theories of democratic elitism

The main provisions of the value theory of elites underlie the concepts of democratic elitism (elite democracy), which have become widespread in the modern world. They proceed from Joseph Schumpeter's understanding of democracy as competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters. Proponents of democratic elitism, citing the results of empirical research, argue that real democracy needs both elites and mass political apathy, since too much political participation threatens the stability of democracy. Elites are needed primarily as a guarantor of a high-quality composition of leaders elected by the population. The very social value of democracy depends decisively on the quality of the elite. The leadership stratum not only possesses the necessary qualities for governance, but also serves as a defender of democratic values ​​and is able to restrain the political and ideological irrationalism, emotional imbalance and radicalism often inherent in the masses.

In the 60s and 70s. claims about the comparative democracy of the elite and the authoritarianism of the masses have been largely refuted by concrete research. It turned out that although representatives of the elites usually surpass the lower strata of society in accepting liberal democratic values ​​(freedom of personality, speech, competition, etc.), in political tolerance, tolerance of other people’s opinions, in condemning dictatorship, etc., but they are more conservative in recognizing the socio-economic rights of citizens: to work, to strike, to organize in a trade union, to social security, etc. In addition, some scientists (P. Bachrach, F. Naschold) have shown the possibility of increasing the stability and efficiency of the political system by expanding mass political participation.

Concepts of Elite Pluralism

The principles of the value theory about the value-rational nature of the selection of elites in a modern democratic society develop the concepts of plurality and pluralism of elites, which are perhaps the most common in today's elite thought. They are often called elite functional theories. They do not deny the elitist theory as a whole, although they require a radical revision of a number of its fundamental, classical principles. The pluralistic concept of the elite is based on the following postulates:

1. Interpretation of political elites as functional elites. Qualification to perform the functions of managing specific social processes is the most important quality that determines belonging to the elite. “Functional elites are individuals or groups with special qualifications necessary to occupy certain leadership positions in society. Their superiority in relation to other members of society is manifested in managing or influencing important political and social processes."

2. Denial of the elite as a single privileged relatively cohesive group. In a modern democratic society, power is dispersed among various groups and institutions, which, through direct participation, pressure, the use of blocs and alliances, can veto undesirable decisions, defend their interests, and find compromises. The pluralism of elites is determined by the complex social division of labor and the diversity of the social structure. Each of the many basic, “mother” groups - professional, regional, religious, demographic and others - identifies its own elite that defends its values ​​and interests.

3. The division of society into the elite and the masses is relative, conditional and often blurred. Between them there is a relationship of representation rather than dominance or permanent leadership. Elites are controlled by mother groups. Through a variety of democratic mechanisms - elections, referendums, polls, the press, pressure groups, etc. This is facilitated by elite competition, reflecting economic and social competition in modern society. It prevents the formation of a single dominant leadership group and makes it possible for the elites to be accountable to the masses.

4. In modern democracies, elites are formed from the most competent and interested citizens, who can very freely join the elite and participate in decision-making. The main subject of political life is not the elite, but interest groups. The differences between the elite and the masses are based mainly on unequal interests in decision-making. Access to the leadership stratum is opened not only by wealth and high social status, but, above all, by personal abilities, knowledge, activity, etc.

5. In democracies, elites perform important public functions related to governance. It is unlawful to talk about their social dominance.

Concepts of elite pluralism are widely used to theorize modern Western democracies. However, these theories largely idealize reality. Numerous empirical studies indicate a clear uneven influence of different social strata on politics, the predominance of the influence of capital, representatives of the military-industrial complex and some other groups. Given this, some proponents of pluralist elitism propose to identify the most influential “strategic” elites, whose “judgments, decisions and actions have important predetermining consequences for many members of society.”

Left-liberal concepts

A kind of ideological antipode to pluralistic elitism are left-liberal theories of the elite. The most important representative of this trend was Charles Wright Mills back in the 50s. tried to prove that the United States is governed not by many, but by one ruling elite. Left-liberal elitism, while sharing some provisions of the Machiavellian school, also has specific distinctive features:

1. The main elite-forming characteristic is not outstanding individual qualities, but the possession of command positions and leadership positions. It is the occupation of key positions in the economy, politics, military and other institutions that provides power and thereby constitutes the elite. This understanding of the elite distinguishes left-liberal concepts from Machiavellian and other theories that derive elitism from the special qualities of people.

2. Group cohesion and diversity in the composition of the ruling elite, which is not limited to the political elite directly making government decisions, but also includes corporate leaders, politicians, senior civil servants and senior officers. They are supported by intellectuals who are well ensconced within the existing system.

The rallying factor of the ruling elite is not only the common interest of its constituent groups in maintaining their privileged position and the social system that ensures it, but also the proximity of social status, educational and cultural level, range of interests and spiritual values, lifestyle, as well as personal and family ties.

There are complex hierarchical relationships within the ruling elite. Although Mills sharply criticizes the ruling elite of the United States and reveals the connection between politicians and large owners, he is still not a supporter of the Marxist class approach, which considers the political elite only as representatives of the interests of monopoly capital.

3. The deep difference between the elite and the masses. People who come from the people can enter the elite only by occupying high positions in the social hierarchy. However, they have little real chance of doing so. The ability of the masses to influence the elite through elections and other democratic institutions is very limited. With the help of money, knowledge, and a proven mechanism for manipulating consciousness, the ruling elite controls the masses virtually uncontrollably.

4. Recruitment of the elite is carried out mainly from its own environment on the basis of the acceptance of its socio-political values. The most important selection criteria are the possession of resources of influence, as well as business qualities and a conformist social position.

5. The primary function of the ruling elite in society is to ensure its own dominance. It is this function that is responsible for solving management problems. Mills denies the inevitability of elitism in society and criticizes it from a consistently democratic position.

Proponents of the left-liberal theory of the elite usually deny the direct connection of the economic elite with political leaders, whose actions, as, for example, Ralph Miliband believes, are not determined by large owners. However, political leaders of developed capitalist countries agree with the basic principles of the market system and see it as optimal for modern society form of social organization. Therefore, in their activities they strive to guarantee the stability of the social order based on private property and pluralistic democracy.

In Western political science, the main provisions of the left-liberal concept of the elite are subject to sharp criticism, especially statements about the closedness of the ruling elite, the direct entry of big business into it, etc. In Marxist literature, on the contrary, this direction, due to its critical orientation, was assessed very positively.

Typology elite.

Points of view on the content of the category “elite” differ from each other mainly in their attitude to the ideal principles of elite recruitment and the corresponding axiological guidelines:

Some researchers believe that the true elite must be distinguished by the nobility of its origin;

Others place this category exclusively richest people countries;

Still others, who consider elitism a function of personal merit and merit,

The most gifted representatives of society.

It is obvious that the upper layer of any modern society includes various political elite groups: economic, intellectual, professional.

The inevitable difference in the abilities and aspirations of people, the need for professionalization and institutionalization of administrative work, the high importance of the latter for society and a number of other factors inevitably lead to the formation of a managerial layer. It, accordingly, should be considered not only as a “caste” or clan of people engaged in “dirty work”, but also as a recruited stratum called by society, possessing undoubted privileges and endowed with great responsibility. The basic parameters for classifying elites can be all the characteristics listed at the beginning previous section. Here are several types of elite classification:

The classification of the ruling layer into elite and counter-elite is generally accepted.

The ways of replenishing the elite, the functional features of the society to which a given elite stratum belongs, allow us to talk about open and closed elites.

According to the source of influence (origin, on the one hand, or status, functions, merits, on the other), hereditary and value elites differ.

The different combinations of the most important stratification factors (income, status, education, professional prestige) among representatives of the upper and middle strata (income, status, education, professional prestige) allow us to speak of a top elite, directly making political decisions, and a middle elite, the upper part of the middle class.

Despite the fact that Western elites, as a rule, are oligarchic groups of owners, the replenishment of the elite in the United States and Western European countries comes precisely from the upper part of the middle class, mainly from liberal professions with diplomas and degrees from prestigious universities.

Functions of the political elite.

It is necessary to highlight the following most essential functions of the political elite:

strategic - defining a political program of action by generating new ideas that reflect the interests of society, developing a concept for reforming the country;

organizational - implementation of the developed course in practice, implementation of political decisions;

communicative - effective representation, expression and reflection in political programs of the interests and needs of various social strata and groups of the population, which also involves the protection of social goals, ideals and values ​​characteristic of society;

integrative - strengthening the stability and unity of society, the sustainability of its political and economic systems, preventing and resolving conflict situations, ensuring consensus on the fundamental principles of the life of the state.

Political elite in Russia. Types of political elite.

The personal composition of the political elite is changing, but its official structure remains virtually unchanged. The political elite of Russia is represented by the President, Prime Minister, members of the government, deputies of the Federal Assembly, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme, and Supreme Arbitration Courts, the presidential administration, members of the Security Council, presidential plenipotentiaries 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 persons.

The highest political elite includes leading political leaders and those who hold high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (immediate circle of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of government bodies, leading political parties, factions in parliament). Numerically, this is a fairly limited circle of people who make the most significant political decisions for the entire society, concerning the fate of millions of people who are significant for the entire state. Belonging to the top elite is determined by reputation, finances (the so-called "oligarchs"), or position in the power structure.

The average political elite is formed from huge amount elected officials: deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council, heads of administrations and deputies of legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the federation, mayors of large cities, leaders of various political parties and socio-political movements, heads of electoral districts. The middle elite includes approximately 5% of the population, who simultaneously have three fairly high indicators: income, professional status and education. People whose educational level is higher than their income are more critical of existing social relations and gravitate toward left-wing radicalism or centrism. Representatives of the middle elite, whose income is higher than their level of education, are more likely to show dissatisfaction with their prestige, social status and gravitate toward right-wing political positions. In modern conditions, there is a tendency to increase the role of the middle elite: civil servants, managers, scientists, administrators - in the formation public opinion, preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. This “subelite” usually surpasses the higher elite in awareness and ability to act in solidarity. However, the development of this trend is usually restrained by authoritarian political regimes, striving by all means to keep the “subelite” in line with their policies. Therefore, the process of forming a stable democratic elite is very complicated. But only this type of political elite is able to have a close connection with the people, the highest level of interaction with all layers of society, perceive political opponents and find the most acceptable compromise solutions.

The administrative functional elite (bureaucratic) is the highest stratum of civil servants (bureaucrats) occupying senior positions in ministries, departments and other government bodies. Their role is reduced to preparing general political decisions and organizing their implementation in those structures of the state apparatus that they directly supervise. The political weapon of this group can be sabotage on the part of the administrative apparatus.

Features of political elites in Russia.

Speaking about the Russian ruling political elite, first of all, one cannot help but notice that the burden of historical traditions of political culture in many, if not all, ways determines the methods of political activity, political consciousness and behavior of the new wave of “Russian reformers”. By their nature and essence, they do not perceive other methods of action other than those that were successfully used by both themselves and their predecessors. A fact beyond doubt, historically proven many times, is that political culture takes shape over centuries and can be changed within a short time impossible. That is why the political development of today's Russia has taken on such a familiar character to all of us, with only slight shades of liberal democracy, while at the moment there is a pronounced need for a new way of developing political relations. At the moment in Russia, state power is characterized by three main features:

1). Power is indivisible and irreplaceable (in fact, one can say hereditary);

2). Power is completely autonomous and also completely uncontrollable by society;

3). The traditional connection of Russian power with the possession and disposal of property.

It is precisely these essential characteristics of the Russian government that the principles of liberal democracy are adjusted to, which turns into its complete opposite. At the moment, the central problem of the Russian political system is the implementation of power (primarily its divisibility and displacement). The historical experience of Russian parliamentarism and its development confirms one interesting feature: confrontation, and sometimes violent conflict, between the executive power, as the leading one, and the marginal legislative power. The suppression or even destruction of one branch of government actually consolidates the omnipotence of another, which, however, based on world experience, leads to the defeat of the current regime. There cannot be complete harmony between these branches of government, but their clear separation ensures public control over state power.

The structure of political elites in Russia.

Political power elite Russian Federation consists of a number of groups. Moreover, what is characteristic is that the ideological foundations of these groups do not play a special role; in reality, they act only as an ideological flair in political discussions. The ideas of justice, public order, and the effectiveness of power are shared by all parties, which makes them look the same and hardly distinguishable from each other. At the same time, the socio-economic structuring on the ground, which took place several years ago, has been replaced by socio-political and even ethnic factors , which indicates the growing politicization of public sentiment.

The modern ruling political elites of Russia consist mainly of the following socio-political groups:

• former party nomenklatura (CPSU);
• former democratic opposition (Democratic Russia);
• former economic managers of lower and middle management;
• former Komsomol workers;
• employees of various self-government bodies (district councils, city councils).

In addition, one can take into account a small percentage of the intellectual elite - the intelligentsia. The above groups, as part of the ruling elite, have a number of characteristics characteristic of it:

• activities based on the principle of management teams strictly subordinate to the head of the executive branch;
• the obligatory existence of personal devotion to the head, the first person at any level;
• the presence at each level of appropriate leaders with a personal dedicated team;
• carefully disguised involvement in the division and appropriation of state property (privatization);
• connection with organized crime and direct lobbying of its interests is common.

This gradation, as already mentioned, is based on research in the provinces, but, again, it is quite representative of the entire political elite of the Russian Federation. In general, in political structure Russia can be distinguished into two main blocs, mostly constantly colliding and occasionally cooperating with each other - the political elites and the electorate of capital cities and provinces. In the provinces, at the level of regions and autonomies, the ethnic factor has recently come to the fore due to direct national demarcation. This is precisely where the above-mentioned grouping of public opinion and political elites around national-patriotic parties, movements and blocs occurs.

Conclusion.

There is still no complete, well-functioning system for replenishing the elite, and this suggests that, in general, the political system of Russia has not yet been formed.

The development of the political elite goes from disunited to consensus, i.e. inclined to come to a common opinion on the basis of compromises. This does not mean that elite groups strive for unity (although there are such trends), they are not ready for this. However, what the country needs is not the unity of the political elite, but its ability to solve state problems.

However, in Russia, strengthening the state does not mean strengthening the entire political elite, but only the ruling one. This specificity is a consequence of the authoritarian social system. And if the taken course is not changed, then we should expect an even greater strengthening of the elite in power.

This process has positive aspects. Strengthening the state and the political elite will lead to increased efficiency of the legal system. And in this regard, one can challenge another false thesis about Russia: that strengthening the role of the state increases the power of officials.

The power of civil servants increases precisely during periods of weakening of the state, when control over officials by the political elite disappears, and they are guided not by laws, but by their own interests, which inevitably leads to increased corruption and the criminalization of power.

The question arises: how much time does the political elite have to solve such problems as improving its qualitative composition, increasing the efficiency of government, improving the socio-economic situation in the country and some others?

With V. Putin coming to power, the ruling elite took many steps to transform both the political system and the country’s political elite into an authoritarian-democratic one. The new head of state put the Federal Assembly under his control, the main political parties, business elite, most regional leaders, major electronic media.

Whatever the prospects for the development of the situation in Russia, they completely depend on the policies of the ruling elite, etc. first of all, its head - the President of the country.

Bibliography:

1. N.A. Baranov, G.A. Pikalov. Theory of Politics:

Tutorial In 3 parts. St. Petersburg: BSTU Publishing House, 2003.

2. Baranov N.A. Textbook: “Political relations and the political process in modern Russia: A course of lectures.”

St. Petersburg: BSTU, 2004.

3. V.P. Pugachev, A.I. Soloviev. Textbook "Introduction to Political Science."

M.: Aspect-Press, 2000.

4. The website www.33333.ru is only about politics.

The modern Russian elite began to take shape under M. Gorbachev. Under Boris Yeltsin, O. Kryshtanovskaya believes, the revolutionary period of transformation of the elite ended, and the stage of cementing the new elite began. How does the elite of times of economic and social change differ from the previous elite?

According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, the “Yeltsin” elite differed in many ways from the “Brezhnev” and even the “Gorbachev” elite. First of all, there has been a “rejuvenation” of the elite: the government and regional elite have become “younger” by almost 10 years. The share of villagers in Yeltsin’s circle fell almost 5 times, in general among the elite over the past 10 years - by 2.5 times. The Yeltsin elite turned out to be the most educated compared to the previous Soviet elites. The percentage of people with higher education in the elite as a whole was 94%, and in such sub-elite groups as the party elite, government and top leadership - 100% (while in the Brezhnev elite as a whole - 88.85, in the Gorbachev elite - 84, 1%). Two-thirds of the presidential team consisted of doctors of science. We can say that Yeltsin brought young, brilliantly educated Moscow political scientists, economists, and lawyers closer to him. The percentage of those with academic degrees in government and among party leaders was also high.

Not only the level, but also the nature of education has changed. The Brezhnev elite was technocratic. Under Gorbachev, the percentage of technocrats decreased due to an increase in the proportion of people with higher political or party education. Under Yeltsin, a sharp decline in the share of technocrats was accompanied by an increase in the share of humanists in the elite, especially in the economic and legal fields.

And finally, the Yeltsin elite was the least connected by origin with the old nomenklatura. Half of all party leaders, 59% of new businessmen, a third of deputies (of the fifth State Duma), a quarter of the presidential team and government have never been part of the nomenklatura in the past. The regional elite was recruited in the most traditional way, where only 17% were free from the previous nomenklatura. At the same time, the highest echelons of the nomenklatura were not the main base for starting the current leadership. Only a third of party leaders and a quarter of members of the presidential entourage occupied high positions in the previous government structures. The main springboard for upward movement was the second and third ranks of the nomenklatura.

The sources of recruitment for different sub-elite groups were different. The regional and presidential sub-elites were formed at the expense of officials of the Soviet apparatus. The business elite drew its personnel mainly from the Komsomol. The government was reproduced from a cadre of business executives, diplomats and security officials.

There seems to be a significant update elites. But this renewal took place against the background of an even deeper process - continuity of elites.

Continuity is considered by elitologists as a pattern of formation of a new elite. It manifests itself in two main trends. The first can be formulated as follows: with any, even the most radical, political changes, the old elite does not completely leave the scene, but is included in the new one as part of it. There are many reasons for this. This is the lack of professionals in the ranks of the elite who have information and practical knowledge necessary to govern the country. This is also the presence of “defectors” who prudently left the old elite even before its defeat. This is also the impossibility of quickly replacing old personnel at everyone, including key positions. Finally, this is the general weakness of the new elite at first, pushing it to compromise with the most pragmatic and flexible predecessors.

The second trend is continuity in the form of borrowing values, norms, ideas, customs, and traditions from the old elite. It can happen quite openly when, for example, it comes to respect for national values ​​and historical shrines. But borrowing more often occurs “smuggled”, behind the scenes and even contrary to public declarations of a complete break with the “damned past.” In this case, the symbolism, ceremonies, rituals, slogans change - outwardly the elite appears in new clothes. However, her ideology – nothing more than more or less transformed and modernized views of past times.

There are again many reasons for this phenomenon, including the effect of the first tendency: borrowing occurs not only through the new authorities adopting the views and traditions of their predecessors, but also through the inclusion of their bearers in the new ruling elite. Nevertheless, out of many reasons, we can single out two that are most significant for the post-totalitarian era. First of all, this is the intellectual, ideological, moral weakness of the new elite. She came to power without her own ideological baggage, so she grabs everything that comes to hand. And the most attractive thing, paradoxically, is the proven arsenal of the old elite. It is quite possible that an elementary psychological mechanism of imitation is also at work here: observing for many years the process of rule of this elite, unconsciously assimilating the patterns of its actions, behavior, rhetoric, its ideas, new politicians, having come to power, also unconsciously reproduce them.

Another reason is that the very logic of power, the need to retain it and stabilize it, forces the use of political and ideological means that were rejected for moral and other reasons before the new elite came to power. The position of the ruler, the duties and responsibilities associated with it, quickly force one to abandon highly romantic ideas about the process of exercising power.

The continuity of the old and new elites is most clearly manifested in the sphere of distribution of power. Thus, O. Kryshtanovskaya believes that during the Soviet period the ruling elite was monolithic, and during perestroika it was divided into two groups: the political and economic elite. In fact, there was a redistribution of power within the former party-state nomenklatura. One part of it moved from party bodies to Soviet ones, and during the formation of new structures of executive power (administration of the President and government, regional administration) - to bodies of the new administration. Another part of the party-state nomenklatura exchanged their power in the economy for property, privatizing key infrastructure areas of the economy (finance, distribution, foreign economic relations) and the most profitable enterprises. The minister became the holder of a controlling stake in the concern, the head of the department of the Ministry of Finance became the president of a commercial bank, and a senior employee of the State Supply Agency became the chief manager of the stock exchange.

The new elite recruited under Gorbachev and Yeltsin was also drawn into this process of redistribution of power and division of property. It was the influx into the elite of those who yesterday were far from the levers of power or occupied low-prestige levels of power and the bureaucratic pyramid, as well as a noticeable influx of intelligentsia into politics that created the illusion of a serious renewal of the elite.

The current period in the development of the Russian elite can be called, according to O. Kryshtanovskaya, the stage of cementing the new elite. Its characteristic features are giving the elite an increasingly “closed” character, a shift in the center of power from legislative bodies to the executive, concentration of power in the economy through the creation of powerful horizontal structures such as financial and industrial groups, uniting multi-industry concerns, their own banks, exchanges, insurance companies, trading houses, investment and pension funds etc.

At the same time, the timing of the formation of various elite groups of society is important. The process of formalizing and realizing their specific group interests occurs most quickly among representatives of the industrial and financial elites, as well as among the administrative elite, which in turn is divided into central and regional. Other elite groups (the intellectual elite in the field of science, culture, mass communication, social movements, etc.) go through the stage of restructuring and self-determination much more slowly.

There are six main sub-elite groups of the new elite: senior leadership, party elite, parliamentary elite, government, regional elite, business elite. Relations within these groups, as well as between them, are complex and fluid. Today we can talk about the following types of relationships between elites: 1) federal - regional, ethnic elites; 2) within the regional elite (legislative - executive power, regional leadership - local leadership); 3) elite - counter-elite; 4) political - economic elite; 5) struggle within the ruling elite.

Thus, the elite is a social group that occupies a special (leading) position in the social institutions of society. A feature of the political elite is the real opportunity to adopt or influence the adoption of general government decisions. At the same time, the ruling elite, like the elite as a whole, is heterogeneous: between its various groups There is a constant struggle for dominance. The modern Russian elite was formed to a large extent on the basis of the former party-state nomenklatura. It is logical to assume that the further transformation of the Russian elite will be associated not so much with the possible rise to power of modern counter-elites, but with the real redistribution of property.

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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal state budget educational institution higher vocational education Vladimir State University named after Alexander Grigorievich and Nikolai Grigorievich Stoletov

Law Institute named after. MM. Speransky

in the discipline "Political Science"

Modern political elite in Russia

Vladimir 2015

WITHpossession

Introduction

1. The emergence of the concept and theory of political elites

1.1 Main directions of modern elite theory

1.2 Typology of the political elite

1.3 Main functions of the political elite

2. Types of political elite in Russia

2.1 Characteristics and features of the political elite in Russia

2.2 Structure of the political elite in Russia

Conclusion

Literature

INconducting

The elite, as a part of society, occupies a leading place in the system of developing social values ​​and norms by which all segments of the population are forced to live. Without an elite, society cannot exist in principle. Any society is always divided into a dominant minority (elite) and a controlled, managed majority (the masses), oriented towards the values ​​of the minority.

Therefore, in modern political science, particular attention is paid to elitology. There are many approaches to understanding the elite. In Russian political science, a structural-functional approach is used, when members of the elite are considered from the point of view of their position in the hierarchical system of social structures.

In fact, the elite is a full-fledged social group with a complex structure. The political elite is a relatively small layer of people (minority) occupying leadership positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations, possessing political power, all the resources of political influence, and influencing the development of government management decisions and the implementation of policies in the country.

And in this regard, the role of the political elite in the public life of the country and in the ongoing political processes is enormous. As Cicero noted, “...a small, very small number of people placed at the head of the state is enough to correct or spoil the morals of the people.”

This paper presents the general ideas of the concepts of the formation of political elites, provides a typology of elites, functions, reflects the characteristic features of the Russian political elite, its problems, its structure, and on this basis appropriate conclusions are drawn.

1. The emergence of the concept and theory of political elites

1.1 The main directions of modern elite theory

The political elite is a relatively small social group, the core of which is a fairly significant amount of political power, ensuring integration, subordination and reflection in political attitudes of the interests of various sectors of society and creating a mechanism for the implementation of political plans. In other words, the elite is the highest part of a social group, class, or political social organization.

Translated from French, “elite” means “best”, “selected”.

Firstly, one of the meanings of this word implies the possession of some of the highest traits on an established value scale.

Secondly, the “elite” in Everyday life It is customary to call the best, most valuable group for society, one that rises above the masses and is called upon to rule the masses.

For example, in slave-owning and feudal societies, the aristocracy acts as the elite. (“Aristos” means “best”; aristocracy means “power of the best.”)

In political science, the term “elite” has the first, more neutral, meaning. Representatives of the political elite are the most prominent owners of managerial qualities in the field of politics and functions.

The theory of the political elite assumes the priority of politics over the economy, the social structure of society, therefore it is characterized by absolute incompatibility with the ideas of economic and social determinism, represented, for example, by Marxism, which treats politics merely as a superstructure over the economic base.

In this regard, the attitude to the study of the concept of the political elite, the structure of the ruling nomenklatura elite in Soviet social science, was considered as something pseudoscientific, not distinguished by positive features.

At the initial stages of the formation of political science, the French term “elite” became widespread at the beginning of the 20th century. thanks to the works of Sorel and Pareto, although the ideas of political elitism arose outside of France in ancient times. The ideas of elitism found their justification in the works of Confucius and Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Carly, Nietzsche.

For example, in Confucius society is divided into “noble men” (elite) and “low people” (common people). In Plato's ideas, the elite is a minority ruling over the majority.

According to Aristotle, democracy was a utopian idea, but democracy should be representative. That is, leaders must stand out from the general mass.

The ideas of elitism appeared more meaningful in the concepts of elites. XIX - beginning XX century G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels.

In the ideas of G. Mosca, the term “political class” was formulated for the first time. In his opinion, the political elite is a group of politically active people focused exclusively on power. Only people with wealth, military prowess and priesthood have access to the political class, the elite. Moreover, all political classes are oriented towards inheritance.

V. Pareto argued about the existence of two types of elite, dominant and potential. Within the ruling elite there has already been a loss of active activity, and within the potential elite there is a desire for this activity. And such mutual struggle leads to constant renewal of elites. That is, people who have the highest performance in their activities constitute the elite. Gifted people from the “bottom” rise to the elite, and members of the existing elite, degrading, fall down to the masses.

According to the concept of R. Michels, the elite is an integral companion of democracy. Power is never ceded to the “masses”, only transferred from leader to leader. It is mandatory for the state to create an organizational apparatus for the direct implementation of management. This apparatus is increasingly expanding and ultimately replacing the very idea of ​​democracy. Michels' concept is a kind of concept of bureaucratization of the ruling elite.

So, at the end of the twentieth century. Several basic concepts of the problem of elitism in society have emerged, which will be discussed below.

The first group consists of followers of the Machiavellian approach to the study of the problem under consideration, which received its name thanks to the ideas of N. Machiavelli.

Adherents of the concept of N. Machiavelli are united by the following ideas:

– the elite has special qualities, natural gifts and talents, exceptional education in work in the struggle for power;

– the elite is united into a group distinguished by a commonality of ideas, interests, social and professional status;

– recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. And this kind of division is a completely natural phenomenon natural to human nature.

And despite the change in the personal composition of the elite, the dominant attitude towards the masses always remains unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, tribal leaders, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents were replaced, but the relations of dominance and subordination between them and the common people remained and always prevailed.

The struggle for power (latent or explicit, inevitable by its nature) is the main phenomenon of the formation and change of elites. This kind of struggle will always exist. There will definitely be people with a certain set of exceptional qualities, with the desire to occupy a privileged position in society. And not everyone who already occupies such a position is ready to give it up voluntarily.

The elite assumes a dominant, leading role in society and seeks to pass on its privileged position by inheritance, which, in turn, leads to the degeneration of the outstanding qualities of the elite.

Machiavellian theories of elites are not without reason subject to scientific criticism for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, rejection of democratic principles, underestimation of the potential capabilities and activity of the masses, and a negative attitude towards the struggle for power.

To overcome and improve weaknesses Machiavelli's ideas were inspired by the value theories of the elite. Like Machiavellian concepts, they consider the elite to be the main constructive force in society, but their position towards democracy is softened.

The value concept is multivariate, but there are several basic ones that unite all adherents of the idea:

– first of all, a highly professional elite, people with outstanding abilities in various spheres of life. The composition of the elite has the ability to update the requirements for participants due to the constant continuous spiritual, value, and material evolution of society.

– the elite is represented exclusively by the mutual cooperation of individuals who care about the good of society, and do not pursue their own selfish goals in the struggle for power.

– the relationship between the elite and the masses is based on the dominant, authoritative principle of the ruling elite and the obedience of its power by the people. The elite must command the respect of the masses, confirmed by free elections.

– the formation of the elite occurs as a result of the natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives, and not at all as a result of a struggle for power. In this regard, society should strive to improve the mechanisms of such selection in all social strata.

– the presence of elitism as one of the main conditions for the effective functioning of any democratic society. Initially, people in a democratic state are provided with equal living conditions to start from (social equality) and, thanks to their efforts and activity, they will have their finish line. In this case, either leaders or outsiders appear.

The concepts of democratic elitism (elite democracy), which have become widespread in the modern world, are based on some essential provisions of the value theory of elites. The origins of this concept are in the understanding of democracy proposed by J. Schumpeter as competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters.

According to the concept of democratic elitism, the existence of real democracy is impossible without the elite as the guarantor of high-quality leadership elected by the population. And it is the quality of the elite that directly affects the quality of the social value of democracy.

The management team sufficiently possesses all the qualities necessary for management, and is the bearer and ensurer of the protection of democratic principles and values.

In 1960-1970 claims about the comparative democracy of the elite and the authoritarianism of the masses have been largely refuted by concrete research. It turned out that although representatives of the elites usually surpass the lower strata of society in accepting liberal democratic values ​​(freedom of personality, speech, competition, etc.), in political tolerance, tolerance of other people’s opinions, in condemning dictatorship, etc., but they are more conservative in recognizing the socio-economic rights of citizens: to work, to strike, to organize in a trade union, to social security, etc. In addition, some scientists (P. Bachrach, F. Naschold) have shown the possibility of increasing the stability and efficiency of the political system by expanding mass political participation.

The most widespread in modern elitist thought are the ideas of the value theory about the value-rational nature of the selection of elites in a modern democratic society. They can also be called functional theories of the elite.

The adherents of this concept do not reject the elite theory as a whole, but they support the need to revise its fundamental principles.

The main postulates of the pluralistic concept of the elite are the following:

– political elites are viewed exclusively as functional, that is, as groups whose members have certain special qualifications to occupy certain leadership positions in society. The main quality that determines membership in the elite is precisely their high qualifications to perform the functions of managing specific social processes, which is their superiority over other members of society.

– the elite cannot be considered as a single integrated privileged group. In a modern democratic society, there is a pluralism of elites, since power operates between various groups and institutions, which, with the help of direct participation, can defend their interests and find compromises. Each of the basic groups, professional, religious, regional, demographic and others, forms its own elite with values ​​and interests unique to it.

– there is no clear, pronounced division into the elite and the masses. This theory denies the form of “supremacy-subordination” in their relationships; rather, we are talking about relations of representation. Elites are controlled by their base groups. Through the use of democratic mechanisms of elections, referendums, polls, the press, pressure groups, etc., there is social competition among elites in society. All this prevents the formation of a single dominant group and makes it possible for the elites to be accountable to the masses.

– access to the leadership stratum of basic groups is open to persons with high social status, great financial capabilities, possessing exceptional personal abilities, knowledge, skills, and a high activity indicator.

– in democratic states, elites are involved in performing important public functions related to governance.

The concepts of elite pluralism are quite widely used to theorize modern Western democracies. However, reality in these theories is significantly idealized.

According to numerous studies, a clear uneven influence of different social strata on politics and the dominance of capital has been discovered.

The ideological antipode of pluralistic elitism is left-liberal theories of the elite. The most important representative of this trend was R. Mills back in the 1950s. tried to prove that in the United States control belongs not to several, but to one ruling elite. This elite is the central core current system society.

Sharing some provisions of the Machiavellian school, left-liberal elitism also has specific features:

– the main elite-forming feature is the possession of command positions and leadership positions, positions in various fields of activity.

– the diversity of the composition of the ruling elite, which includes political leaders and corporate executives, politicians, senior civil servants and senior officers. All these individuals should be united by the desire to maintain a privileged position in society, to ensure a lifestyle different from the masses, to maintain an educational and cultural level, and to form family and personal connections.

Hierarchical relationships have been formed within the ruling elite. Despite his sharp criticism of the ruling US elite and the connections of politicians with large property owners, Mills is still not a supporter of the Marxist class approach.

– recognition of the deep difference between the elite and the masses. However, people who come from the people have a chance, albeit small, of becoming members of the elite only after achieving high positions. Using finance and knowledge, the ruling elite actually controls the masses without control.

– renewal of the composition of the elite is carried out exclusively within its own environment on the basis of the acceptance of its socio-political values. The most important selection criteria are the possession of certain resources of influence, as well as business qualities.

– the primary task and function of the ruling elite in society is to ensure its own supremacy in the society of the state. And the solution of many management problems is subordinated to this function. However, Mills denies the inevitability of elitism in society and criticizes democratic positions.

Supporters of the left-liberal elite theory often deny the existence of a direct relationship between representatives of the economic elite and the political elite. However, political leaders of developed capitalist countries agree with the basic principles of the market system and see in it the optimal form of social organization for modern society. Therefore, in their activities they strive to guarantee the stability of the social order based on private property and pluralistic democracy.

Western political science sharply criticizes the main provisions of the left-liberal concept of the elite, especially the assertions about the closedness of the ruling elite and the denial of its connection with big business. In Marxist literature, on the contrary, this direction was assessed very positively.

Thus, the main idea that permeates all existing concepts of political elitism is that the existence of elites is due to the fact that it is impossible to provide power to everyone, to carry out direct participation of the masses in making administrative government decisions, and exercising power. If this power of the elite were available to everyone and everything, its exclusivity would be lost.

1.2 Typology of the political elite

By type of activity, all elites are divided into political, economic, military, bureaucratic and cultural-informational.

The political elite is called upon to provide leadership in the development and implementation of political decisions. Most researchers call the political elite the ruling elite.

According to the method of recruiting (selecting) the elite, there is an open (entrepreneurial) and closed (guild) elite.

Depending on their place in the political system of society, there is a ruling, opposition (counter-elite) and non-ruling intellectual and cultural elite. The ruling elite is directly involved in political decision-making, while the counter-elite promotes its opposition-minded line. The intellectual and cultural elite does not play a decisive role in public administration, but its influence on the minds of the public and on behavior in society is great.

According to the nature of intra-elite relationships, a united elite, an ideologically united, a consensually united, and a divided political elite are distinguished. In the united elite there is no open confrontation; there is a unity of opinions and views. By consensus, the elite forms a certain kind of decisions on separately identified areas of policy. In a divided elite, there is constant confrontation between factions.

According to the degree of representation, there are political elites with high degree representation and low.

Elites with a high degree of representation express the interests of significant strata of society, while those with a low degree of representation express the interests of a limited circle of social strata of society.

By level of competence they denote the highest (federal level), middle (regional) and local (municipal, regional, republican) political elites.

Based on the type of government, they distinguish between totalitarian (using authoritarian power), liberal (using democratic separation of powers) and dominant (compromising), democratic elites.

All political elites are closely interconnected and cannot exist without each other.

1.3. Functions of the political elite

Political elites perform the following functions in society:

– expression of the combined interest of all classes and strata of society, development of ideas for reforming the country’s spheres of life;

– determining the political course, supporting political and management decisions (strategic and organizational functions);

– carrying out personnel policy at the highest level, promoting political leaders;

– rational distribution of values ​​and resources in society;

– ensuring the protection of values, ideas, special goals of the country’s society (communicative function);

– pursuing a policy of preventing conflict situations in society and measures to resolve them, ensuring the stability of political and economic systems (integrative function).

2. Types of political elite in Russia

2.1 Characteristics and features of the political elite in Russia

Based on the analysis of the above theories of elitism, O. Kryshtanovskaya gives the following definition of the elite, representing it as the ruling group of society, which is the upper stratum of the political class and has the maximum power. In her opinion, this group does not have special qualities, and it can include both people of outstanding qualities and mediocre individuals.

As a rule, the main principles for entering the elite are the presence of money, power, origin, etc., but, by no means, the most worthy individuals are granted access to the elite of society.

The evaluative approach has been overcome in the political elite and it is customary to include only persons who occupy a certain status in the political system, allowing them to make appropriate political decisions.

The modern political elite of Russia began its formation in the early 1990s. It was during that period of transition to a market economy that radical changes took place in the structure of the country's political elite.

The service-nomenklatura principle of forming the political elite was replaced by the principle of elite pluralism (the creation of multiple centers of power).

Accordingly, researchers of the theory of elitism highlight the “Yeltsin” and “Putin” periods of formation of the elite in the country.

During the “Yeltsin” period, the supreme power collapsed, its integration never happened. The “Putin” period resolved the problems of the “Yeltsin” period. The necessary amount of power over the regions was returned to the federal center, and a strong system of executive power was created without violating democratic principles.

A distinctive feature of the recruitment of elites under V. Putin was the dominance of the “siloviki” and the reduction of “intellectuals”.

The problem of forming a highly professional political elite, which is not indifferent to the fate of the country and enjoys the trust of the population, is becoming increasingly acute. In this case, a more stringent selection of politicians who are capable of taking personal responsibility for decisions and transformations in the country should be carried out.

At present, the requirements for the professionalism of members of the elite, ruling groups, for the effectiveness of their rule, for the level of moral and educational level, and the ability for progressive development have been clearly formed. One of the most important problems in the development of the elite was the personnel policy, the system of training, retraining and advanced training.

The personal composition of the political elite is constantly changing. The formation and reproduction of the elite is a continuous process. However, its job structure remains virtually unchanged.

The modern political elite of Russia is headed by the president. Next comes the Prime Minister, members of the government, deputies of the Federal Assembly, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme, and Supreme Arbitration Courts, the presidential administration staff, members of the Security Council, presidential plenipotentiaries in the federal districts, heads of power structures in the constituent entities of the federation, the highest diplomatic and military corps, some other government positions, leadership of political parties and large public associations, and other no less influential persons.

Speaking about the Russian ruling political elite, it is necessary to note that the burden of historical traditions of political culture largely predetermines the methods of political activity, political consciousness and behavior of the new wave of “Russian reformers”, who by their nature and essence do not perceive other methods of action other than those that were successfully used both by themselves and their predecessors.

Political culture is multi-layered, it has been developing over centuries, it is embedded in the history of Russia in traditionalism, collectivism, paternalism, and it is not possible to subject it to radical modernization in a short period of time. Currently, there is an attempt to mechanically transfer Western European liberal ideology to Russian soil.

In modern Russia, the issue of creating a public administration system with an appropriate personnel training infrastructure for it has become acute. Thus, one of the main problems of the elite environment is the problem of increasing the managerial potential of the modern political elite. And in this case, an important fact of such an increase is the expansion of the base of elite recruitment at the expense of the sub-elite.

The problem of increasing intellectual capital, the formation of a complex of competent, loyal elite, capable of effective, positively impactful management is urgent. It is necessary to continue to take measures to reduce the incidence of corruption in the circles of the political elite.

It is extremely important to introduce democratic values ​​and principles of humanism into the political elite, and to orient the work of elite circles towards the protection of public interests.

The weakness of the modern Russian political elite is manifested in the lack of a clear ideological orientation. The composition of the elite must be constantly updated, since it is the outdated layers of the elite that are often ardent opponents of modernization measures. But historical facts show that many major modernization events in countries took place thanks to the effective work of the modernization-minded political elite.

A “centre of modernization”, a certain group of like-minded people united by common ideological ideas, should be created within the political elite.

According to scientific research, many modernization projects in the country failed, largely due to the weakness of modernization attitudes in the political elite.

In this regard, a large-scale program of reform of public administration and civil service is currently being implemented.

2.2 Structure of the political elite in Russia

The political elite of Russia is heterogeneous in its essence and internally differentiated and diverse. It is divided into

– ruling at the federal level, possessing state power;

– regional ruling;

– opposition (counter-elite);

– non-ruling intellectual and cultural;

- near-elite environment. And another division into:

– the highest, making decisions that are significant for the state;

– average, taking into account public opinion;

– lower (local);

– administrative (bureaucracy).

The ruling elite is represented by the President of the country, the Vice President, all members of the presidential staff, heads of representative bodies of power, the Prime Minister, his deputies, deputies, heads of ministries, administrations, senior military officials, heads of diplomatic missions abroad, leaders of political parties, social movements , leading media.

The control elite is filled with members opposition parties, movements, representatives of the creative intelligentsia, scientists. As such, the counter-elite is not endowed with power and does not have access to managerial functions.

The intellectual and cultural political elite is the most creative and socially advanced. It includes the creative intelligentsia, active businessmen, theater workers, artists, and journalists.

The near-elite environment is represented by assistants (advisers, consultants, lawyers, managers, scientists, etc.) of persons directly involved in politics, who have the opportunity to indirectly influence management decision-making. These representatives are a kind of conductors between representatives of other groups.

In fact, the niche of the highest political elite is filled by leading political leaders, persons holding high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (immediate circle of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of government bodies, leading political parties, factions in parliament).

In quantitative terms, this is a fairly limited circle of people who make the most significant political decisions for society and the state as a whole. Belonging to the highest elite is determined by the established reputation in social system, financial position (the so-called “oligarchs”), as well as position in the power structure.

The average political elite is formed from large quantity elected officials: deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council, heads of administrations and deputies of legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the federation, mayors of large cities, leaders of various political parties and socio-political movements, heads of electoral districts.

The ruling political elite in Russia, in its structure, also consists of a number of groups, between which there is a constant struggle for dominance in the upper echelons of power. The horizontal integration of the political elite is quite low. Healthy political competition of its kind in the elite and sub-elite environment does not yet exist at a sufficient level.

The middle elite consists of approximately 5% of the population, who simultaneously possess three qualities: income, professional status and education. People with high level education and low incomes are more critical of existing social relations and gravitate towards left radicalism or centrism. Representatives of the middle elite, whose income exceeds their level of education, are adherents of right-wing political positions and are the most critical of their social status.

In modern conditions, there is also a tendency to increase the role of the middle elite, civil servants, managers, scientists, administrators, in the formation of public opinion, preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. It is this “subelite” that is ahead of the top elite in awareness and ability to act in solidarity. However, the development of this trend, as a rule, is restrained by authoritarian political regimes, striving by all means to keep the “subelite” in line with their policies. Therefore, the process of forming a stable democratic elite is very complicated. But only this type of political elite is capable of having a close connection with the people, the highest level of interaction with all layers of society.

The local political elite includes political figures on a local scale (districts, cities, villages, etc.).

The administrative functional elite (bureaucratic) is the highest stratum of civil servants (bureaucrats) occupying senior positions in ministries, departments and other government bodies. Their role is to prepare general political decisions and organize their implementation in those structures of the state apparatus that they directly supervise.

The structure of Russia's political elite also includes a variety of groupings. The ideas of justice, public order, and the effectiveness of government are shared by all parties, in which ways they are similar to each other, despite differences in foundations.

In addition to those listed above, the political elite includes representatives of the ruling class who are not formally associated with politics, but have an indirect influence on it.

Conclusion

Summarizing the above, it should be noted that a complete, smoothly working system for replenishing the political elite still does not exist in modern Russia, which indicates the lack of maturity of the country’s political system as a whole. The elite formation process in our country continues to this day.

A way out of this situation would be to introduce new system recruiting elites based on competitive principles, institutionalizing requirements for the business and moral qualities of members, which will create a highly professional elite with a set of the best professional, business, and moral qualities, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the effectiveness of Russia's development.

The effectiveness of the country's modernization strategy directly depends on the elite. Consequently, an ineffective elite only contributes to the demodernization of society.

With V. Putin coming to power, the ruling elite took many steps to transform both the political system and the country’s political elite into an authoritarian-democratic one. The Federal Assembly, the main political parties, the business elite, most regional leaders, and the main electronic media were controlled by the head of state.

For a democratic state, of which Russia is included, the primary task at present is to form the most qualified elite, politically useful for society, authoritative, morally healthy, interested in the stability of society, dedicated to the idea of ​​​​the prosperity of Russia, and suppressing the process of turning the elite into a closed, dominant, privileged group.

“The country will definitely have an elite of real leaders, truly talented politicians and competent managers on a national scale. Strong-willed qualities, dedication and even decency alone are not enough for such an elite. We need a high legal, managerial and spiritual-moral culture. Only an elite consisting of people of such qualities, in close alliance with those who have achieved success in science, culture and business, will be able to ensure the security of the country and a decent life for people, successfully fight corruption and terrorism, and guarantee the steady strengthening of Russia’s role in international affairs ."

Thus, it seems that the future of the Russian political elite will depend on the individuals within it and the social motives that guide these individuals in their activities. For the sake of their own survival and improvement, the political elite must take measures to improve the health of society as a whole and recruit its representatives. This is precisely the key to preserving Russia as a state.

Literature

1. Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2007. April 27.

2. Ashin G.K., Ponedelkov A.V., Ignatov V.G., Starostin A.M. Fundamentals of political elitology: Textbook. - M.: PRIOR, 1999

3. Baranov N.A. Tutorial. Political relations and the political process in modern Russia: A course of lectures. St. Petersburg: BSTU, 2004.

4. Gorbach K. Post-Soviet elites: convulsions of a newborn child. M., 2005

5. Kryshtanovskaya O. Anatomy of the Russian elite. M.: Zakharov, 2005

6. Ozhegov. S.I. Dictionary Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / S.I. Ozhegov. M.Yu. Shvedov. -M.: 2004

7. Ponedelkov A.V., Starostin A.M. Elitologists about elites. Rostov-on-Don: SKAGS Publishing House, 2007

8. Gorelov. A.A. Political science in questions and answers / A.A. Gorelov.-M.: Eksmo, 2009

9. Abramova I.E., Ponomarenko T.V. Russian political elite in the context of modern political development // Theory and practice of social development. 2013. No. 12. T. 2.

10. Ashin G.K. Recruitment of elites // Power. - 1997. - No. 4.

11. Ashin G. The ruling elite and society // Free Thought. - 1993. - No. 7

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The structure of the politically active part of the country's population, the importance of the political elite in its organization. Characteristic features and purpose of the political elite, the order of its interaction with the rest of society. Typology and recruitment of the political elite.

abstract, added 11/22/2009


The emergence of the concept and theory of elites. The mechanism of formation of the Russian political elite. Formation of the modern Russian political elite at the regional level: features and trends. Possible directions for the development of the Russian political elite.

abstract, added 04/06/2008


course work, added 11/09/2010


Characteristics of the basic scientific concepts of the elites. Structure, functions, typology and mechanisms of formation of political elites. Specifics of the formation of the political elite Belarusian society. The relationship between position in society and the political skill of a leader.

test, added 08/28/2011


The concept of elite and the main theories of the emergence of ideas of elitism, their similar and distinctive features. Origin, types and functions of political elites, their classification according to various criteria. Mechanisms for recruiting political elites and their state in Ukraine.

abstract, added 08/01/2009


The founders of the theory of the political elite and the manifestation of the aristocratic tendency in society. The provisions of the classical concept and the process of formation of the “top of power” in Russia. The importance of political elites in periods of transition and crisis for the country.

test, added 12/19/2010


Studying the concept of “political elite” - a group, a layer of society that concentrates state power in its hands and occupies command posts, governs society. Typology of elites. Social performance of the elite. Elite recruitment systems.

abstract, added 09/06/2010


Transformation of social relations. Essence, nature and leading features of the political elite. Historical aspect. Typological diversity, classification of the political elite. The modern political elite of Russia, its distinctive features, features.

test, added 10/28/2008


The concept of "political elite", its functions and qualities. Types of political elites. The ruling elite. Recruitment, reproduction and circulation of elites. Autonomy of elites and the problem of their consensus. The mechanism of interaction between elites and citizens of a democratic society.

test, added 02/18/2008


Elite as a value element of the social system. Administrative-bureaucratic, spiritual, political, military, financial and economic elite. The meaning, structure and functions of the political elite. Theories of the political elite, oligarchic tendencies.