Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to site">

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 Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Vladimir State University named after Alexander Grigorievich and Nikolai Grigorievich Stoletovs

Law Institute. MM. Speransky

in the discipline "Political Science"

Modern political elite in Russia

Vladimir 2015

WITHcontent

Introduction

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

1.1 The 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 Characteristic features and characteristics of the political elite in Russia

2.2 The 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, according to 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, controlled majority (the masses) oriented towards the values ​​of the minority.

Therefore, in modern political science, special 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, on the other hand, is a relatively small stratum of people (minority), occupying leading positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations, possessing political power, all resources of political influence, and influencing the development of state management decisions, the implementation of policy in the country.

And in this regard, the role of the political elite in the public life of the country, 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."

In this paper, the general ideas of the concepts of the formation of political elites are given, the typology of elites, functions are given, the characteristic features of the Russian political elite, its problems, its structure are reflected, and on this basis the corresponding 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, which ensures integration, subordination and reflection of the interests of various sections of society in political settings and creates a mechanism for implementing political ideas. In other words, the elite is the highest part of a social group, class, political public organization.

Translated from French, "elite" means "the best", "choice".

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

Secondly, the "elite" in Everyday life it is customary to call the best, the most valuable group for society, towering over the masses and called upon to control the masses.

For example, in slave-owning and feudal societies, the aristocracy acts as an elite. ("aristos" means "the best", aristocracy - "the 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 holders 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 interprets politics as just a superstructure over the economic basis.

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 seen as something pseudo-scientific, 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 originated outside of France in ancient times. The ideas of elitism found their justification in the works of Confucius and Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Carly-la, Nietzsche.

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

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

The ideas of elitism appeared more meaningful in the concepts of elite con. XIX - early. 20th century G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels.

In the ideas of G. Moska, 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. At the same time, all political classes are focused on 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 in the potential elite there is a desire for this activity. And such mutual struggle leads to a constant renewal of the elites. That is, people with the highest performance in their activities, and make up the elite. Gifted people from the "lower classes" rise to the elite, and degrading members of the already existing elite, fall down into the masses.

According to the concept of R. Michels, the elite is an inalienable companion of democracy. Power is never ceded to the "masses", it only passes from leader to leader. Without fail, an organizational apparatus is created in the state for the direct implementation of management. This apparatus expands more and more and eventually replaces the very idea of ​​democracy. Michels' concept is a kind of bureaucratization concept of the ruling elite.

So, at the end of the twentieth century. There are several basic concepts of the problem of the elitism of society, 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 in a group that is distinguished by a commonality of ideas, interests, social and professional statuses;

- 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 quite a natural phenomenon for 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 relationship of domination and subordination between them and the common people was preserved and always prevailed.

The struggle for power (latent or explicit, inevitable by nature) is the main phenomenon of the formation and change of elites. This struggle will always exist. There will certainly 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 cede it voluntarily.

The elite assumes a dominant, leading role in society and seeks to inherit their privileged position, which, in turn, leads to the degeneration of the outstanding qualities of the elite.

Machiavellian theories of elites are not unreasonably subjected to scientific criticism for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, rejection democratic principles, underestimation of the potential opportunities and activity of the masses, a negative attitude towards the struggle for power.

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

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

- first of all, the highly professional composition of the 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 spiritual, value, material evolution of society.

- the elite is represented exclusively by the mutual cooperation of persons who care about the welfare of society, and not pursuing their own selfish goals in the struggle for power.

- the relationship between the elite and the masses is based on the dominant, authoritative beginning of the ruling elite and obedience to its power by the people. The elite must inspire the respect of the masses, confirmed in free elections.

- the formation of the elite occurs as a result of the natural selection of the most valuable representatives by society, and by no means as a result of the 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 for starting (social equality) and thanks to their efforts, activities, they will have their finishes. 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 a 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 staff possesses to a sufficient extent all the qualities necessary for management, is the bearer and ensurer of the protection of democratic principles and values.

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

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

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

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

- political elites are considered 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 belonging to the elite is precisely the high qualification preparedness to perform the functions of managing specific social processes, which is their superiority over other members of society.

- the elite is not subject to consideration as a single integrated privileged group. In a modern democratic society, there is a pluralism of elites, since the authorities act between various groups and institutions that, with the help of direct participation, can defend their interests and find compromises. In each of the basic groups, professional, religious, regional, demographic and others, their own elite is formed with its own values ​​and interests.

- there is no clear, pronounced division into the elite and the masses. This theory denies the form of "supremacy-subordination" in their relationship, rather it is about the relationship 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 provides an opportunity for the accountability of elites to the masses.

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

- in democratic states, elites are involved in the performance of important public functions related to governance.

The concepts of elite pluralism are quite widely used for the theoretical justification of modern Western democracies. However, reality in these theories is greatly idealized.

Numerous studies have revealed a clear uneven impact of various social strata on politics and the dominance of capital.

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

Sharing some of the 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 both political leaders and corporate executives, politicians, senior civil servants and senior officers. All these persons should be united by the desire to retain a privileged position in society, to ensure a lifestyle different from the masses, maintaining an educational and cultural level, and forming family and personal ties.

Hierarchical relations are formed within the ruling elite. Despite the sharp criticism of the US ruling elite, the presence of politicians' connections with large owners, Mills is still not a supporter of the Marxist class approach.

- recognition of the deep difference between the elite and the masses. However, natives of the people have a chance, albeit small, to become members of the elite, only having achieved high positions. Using finances, knowledge, the ruling elite actually controls the masses uncontrollably.

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

- the first 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 managerial tasks is subordinated to this function. However, Mills denies the inevitability of the elitism of society and criticizes democratic positions.

Supporters of the left-liberal theory of the elite often deny the existence of a direct relationship between representatives of the economic elite and the political one. However, the political leaders of the countries of developed capitalism 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 a 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, in particular the assertions about the closeness of the ruling elite, about 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 lies in the fact that the existence of elites is due to the fact that it is impossible to give power to everyone, to carry out the direct participation of the masses in the adoption of managerial state decisions, the exercise of 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

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

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

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

Depending on the place occupied in the political system of society, there are ruling, opposition (counter-elite) and non-ruling intellectual and cultural elites. The ruling elite takes a direct part in political decision-making, 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, on behavior in society is great.

By the nature of intra-elite relationships, a united elite, ideologically united, consensually united, and disunited political elites are distinguished. There is no open confrontation in the united elite, 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 a high degree of representation and a low one.

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

According to the level of competence, they designate the highest (federal level), middle (regional) and local (municipal, regional, republican) political elites.

According to the type of government, there are totalitarian (with the use of authoritarian power), liberal (with the use of a 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, the development of ideas for reforming the spheres of the country's life;

- determination of the political course, protection of political and managerial decisions (strategic and organizational functions);

– carrying out personnel policy at the highest level, nomination of 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 taking measures to resolve them, ensuring the stability of political and economic systems (an integrative function).

2. Types of political elite in Russia

2.1 Characteristic features and characteristics 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 personalities.

As a rule, the main principles of entering the elite are the availability of money, power, origin, etc., but, by no means, access to the elite of society is open to not the most worthy individuals.

The evaluative approach has been overcome in the political elite and it is customary to include only persons occupying a certain status in the political system, which allows 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 fundamental changes took place in the structure of the country's political elite.

The service-nomenklatura principle of formation of the political elite was replaced by the principle of elite pluralism (the creation of a plurality of centers of power).

Accordingly, researchers of the theory of elitism single out the “Yeltsin” and “Putin” periods of the 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". The necessary amount of power over the regions was returned to the federal center, 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 "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 confidence of the population, is becoming more and more acute. In this case, a more rigorous selection of politicians who are able to take personal responsibility for the decisions and transformations in the country should be carried out.

At present, the requirements for the professionalism of members of the elite, the ruling groups, for the effectiveness of their government, for the level of moral and educational level, and the ability for progressive development are clearly defined. 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 current 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, Supreme Arbitration Courts, the presidential administration, members of the Security Council, authorized representatives of the president in the federal districts, heads 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 equally influential people.

Speaking about the Russian ruling political elite, it should be noted that the burden of historical traditions of political culture largely determines the methods of political activity, political consciousness and the behavior of a new wave of "Russian reformers", who, by nature and essence, do not perceive other methods of action, except for those that were successfully used both by themselves and their predecessors.

The political culture is multi-layered, it takes centuries to develop, 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 onto Russian soil.

In modern Russia, the issue of creating a public administration system with an appropriate infrastructure for training personnel 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 elite recruitment base at the expense of the sub-elite.

The problem of building up intellectual capital, the formation of a complex of competent, loyal elite capable of effective, positively effective management is topical. It is necessary to continue to carry out measures to reduce the facts 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, 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 absence of a clear ideological orientation. The composition of the elite must be updated on a permanent basis, since it is the outdated strata of the elite that are often ardent opponents of modernization measures. But the historical facts show that many major modernization events in the countries took place thanks to the effective work of the modernization-minded political elite.

As part of the political elite, a "center of modernization" should be created, a certain group of like-minded people united by common ideological ideas.

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

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

2.2 The 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, with state power;

- regional ruling;

- oppositional (counter-elite);

- non-ruling intellectual and cultural;

- an elitist 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 funds mass media.

The counter-elite is filled with members of opposition parties, movements, representatives of the creative intelligentsia, and academic staff. As such, the counter-elite is not endowed with power and has no access to managerial functions.

The intellectual and cultural political elite is the most creative and socially advanced. It includes creative intelligentsia, active businessmen, theatrical figures, artists, 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 the adoption of managerial decisions. These representatives are a kind of conductors between representatives of other groups.

In fact, the niche of the highest political elite is filled with leading political leaders, persons holding high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power (the immediate environment of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of state authorities, leading political parties, factions in parliament).

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

The middle political elite is formed from a large number elected officials: deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council, heads of administrations and deputies of legislative assemblies of subjects of the federation, mayors of large cities, leaders of various political parties and socio-political movements, heads of constituencies.

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 rather 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 is made up of approximately 5% of the population, who simultaneously possess three qualities: income, professional status and education. People with a high level of education and low incomes are more critical of existing social relations and gravitate towards left-wing radicalism or centrism. Representatives of the middle elite, whose income exceeds the level of education, are adherents of right-wing political positions and are 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, the preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. It is this "sub-elite" that outstrips the top elite in terms of awareness and ability to act in solidarity. However, the development of this trend, as a rule, is held back by authoritarian political regimes, which seek by all means to keep the "sub-elite" in line with their policies. Therefore, the process of forming a stable democratic elite is very complicated. And only this type of political elite is able to have a close relationship with the people, the highest level of interaction with all sectors of society.

The local political elite includes local politicians (districts, cities, villages, etc.).

The administrative functional elite (bureaucratic) is the highest stratum of civil servants (officialdom) occupying the highest positions in ministries, departments and other government bodies. Their role lies in the preparation of general political decisions and the organization of 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 efficiency of power are shared by all parties, in what exactly they are similar to each other, despite differences in foundations.

The composition of the political elite, in addition to those listed, includes representatives ruling class, formally not related to politics, but exerting an indirect influence on it.

Conclusion

Summarizing the above, it should be noted that a complete, well-functioning system for replenishing the political elite still does not exist in modern Russia, which indicates the insufficient maturity of the country's political system as a whole. The elite-forming process in our country continues at the present time.

The way out of this situation is to introduce new system recruiting elites based on competitive principles, institutionalizing the requirements for the business and moral qualities of members, which will create a highly professional elite with a set of the best professional, business, 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 inefficient elite only contributes to the demodernization of society.

When V. Putin came 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, the majority of regional leaders, and the main electronic media turned out to be under the control of the head of state.

For a democratic state, to which Russia is ranked, the task of forming the most qualified composition of the elite, politically useful for society, authoritative, morally healthy, interested in the stability of society, devoted to the idea of ​​Russia's prosperity, suppressing the process of transforming the elite into a closed ruling privileged group.

“The country will definitely have an elite of real leaders, really talented politicians and competent state-level managers. Some strong-willed qualities, dedication and even decency are not enough for such an elite. We need a high legal, managerial and spiritual and 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 persons included in it, and the social motives by which these persons will be guided in their activities. The political elite, for the sake of their own survival and improvement, must take measures to improve society as a whole and recruit their representatives. This is precisely the guarantee of the preservation of Russia as a state.

Literature

1. Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation / / Rossiyskaya Gazeta.2007.27 April.

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 born 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. Swedes. -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. Vol. 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

Hosted 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 of development of the Russian political elite.

abstract, added 04/06/2008


course work, added 09.11.2010


Characteristics of the main scientific concepts of elites. Structure, functions, typology and mechanisms of formation of political elites. The specifics of the formation of the political elite of the Belarusian society. The relationship of position in society with the political skill of the leader.

test, added 08/28/2011


The concept of the elite and the main theories of the emergence of the ideas of elitism, their similarities and differences. Origin, types and functions of political elites, their classification according to various criteria. Mechanisms for recruiting political elites and their condition 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 value of political elites in transitional and crisis periods for the country.

control work, added 12/19/2010


The study of the concept of "political elite" - a group, a stratum of society that concentrates state power in its hands and occupies command posts, governs society. Typology of elites. Social performance of the elite. Elite recruiting systems.

abstract, added 09/06/2010


Transformation of public 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. 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 valuable element of the social system. Administrative-bureaucratic, spiritual, political, military, financial and economic elite. Meaning, structure and functions of the political elite. Theories of the political elite, oligarchic tendencies.

The concepts of "eligism" are quite diverse. They have their origins in the socio-political ideas of ancient times. Even at the time of the decomposition of the tribal system, views appeared that divided society into higher and lower, noble and rabble, aristocracy and ordinary people. These ideas received the most consistent justification and expression from Confucius, Plato, Carlyle and a number of other thinkers. However, these elite theories have not yet received a serious sociological justification.

Historically, the first classical concepts of elites arose in late XIX- early XX centuries. They are associated with the names of the Italian political scientists Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) and Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), as well as the German political scientist and sociologist Roberg Michels (1876-1936). These are representatives of the so-called machiavellian school(but named after the Italian thinker, philosopher and politician Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).

So G. Mosca tried to prove the inevitable division of any society into two unequal but social status and role groups. As early as 1896, in his Fundamentals of Political Science, he wrote: “In all societies, beginning with the most moderately developed and barely reaching the rudiments of civilization, and ending with enlightened and powerful ones, there are two classes of persons; the class of rulers and the class of the ruled. The first, always smaller, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys its inherent advantages, while the second, more numerous, is controlled and regulated by the first ... and supplies it ... with the material means of support necessary for the viability of the political organism ".

G. Mosca analyzed the problem of formation (recruitment) of the political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important criterion for the formation of a political class is the ability to manage other people, i.e. organizational ability, as well as material, moral and intellectual superiority. Although on the whole this class is the most capable of governing, however, not all of its representatives are characterized by advanced, higher qualities in relation to the rest of the population. The political class is gradually changing. In his opinion, there are two tendencies in its development: aristocratic and democratic.

First one of them is manifested in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact. The predominance of the aristocratic tendency leads to the "closing and crystallization" of the class, its degeneration and, as a result, to social stagnation. This, ultimately, entails the intensification of the struggle of new social forces for the occupation of dominant positions in society.

Second, the democratic trend is expressed in the renewal of the political class at the expense of the most able to manage and active lower strata. Such renewal prevents the degeneration of the elite, makes it capable of effective leadership of society. A balance between aristocratic and democratic tendencies is most desirable for society, because it ensures both continuity and stability in the leadership of the country, as well as its qualitative renewal.

The concept of the political class of G. Moska, having had a great influence on the subsequent development of elite theories, was criticized for some absolutization of the political factor in belonging to the ruling layer and in the social structuring of society.

In relation to a modern pluralistic society, such an approach is, indeed, largely unjustified. However, the theory of "political class" found its confirmation in totalitarian states. Here, politics acquired a dominant position over the economy and all other spheres of society, and, in the person of the nomenklatura bureaucracy, a specific prototype of the “political class” described by G. Moska was formed. In totalitarian societies, joining the political nomenklatura, accession to power and party-government management became the root cause of the economic and social domination of the "managing class".

Around the same time, the theory of political elites was developed by V. Pareto. He, like G. Mosca, proceeds from the fact that the world at all times is ruled and should be ruled by an elected minority endowed with special psychological and social qualities - the elite. “Whether some theorists like it or not, he wrote in his Treatise on General Sociology, but human society is heterogeneous and individuals are different physically, morally and intellectually. The set of individuals who, in his opinion, differ in performance, act with high rates in a particular field of activity, and constitute the elite. It is divided into ruling, effectively participating in management, and disliked - people who have psychological qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have access to leadership functions due to their social status and various barriers.

V. Pareto argued that the development of society occurs through a periodic change, the circulation of elites. Since the ruling elite seeks to preserve its privileges and pass them on to people with non-elitist individual qualities, this leads to a qualitative deterioration in its composition and, at the same time, to a quantitative growth of the “counter-elite”, which, with the help of the masses dissatisfied with the government mobilized by it, overthrows the ruling elite and establishes its own domination. .

R. Michels made a major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites. Exploring the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society, he emphasizes organizational abilities, as well as the organizational structures of society that stimulate elitism and elevate the ruling layer. He argues that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it.

In society, but his opinion is valid " iron law of oligarchic tendencies". Its essence lies in the fact that the creation of large organizations inevitably leads to their oligarchization and the formation of an elite due to the action of a whole chain of interrelated factors. Human civilization is impossible without the presence of large organizations. Their leadership cannot be carried out by all members of the organizations. The effectiveness of such organizations requires the rationalization of functions, the allocation of a leading core and apparatus, which gradually, but inevitably, get out of the control of ordinary members, break away from them and subordinate politics to their own interests of the leadership, taking care, first of all, about maintaining their privileged position. Most of the members of these organizations are not competent enough, sometimes passive and show indifference to daily activities and politics in general.

The concepts of elites by G. Mosca, V. Pareto and R. Michels laid the foundation for broad theoretical and empirical studies of groups leading the state or claiming to be.

They are united by the following common features:

• recognition of the elitism of any society, its division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. Such a division follows naturally from the natural nature of man and society;
• special psychological qualities of the elite. Belonging to it is associated primarily with natural talents, education and upbringing;
• group cohesion. The elite is a more or less cohesive group, united not only by a common professional status and social position, but also by an elitist self-consciousness, a perception of oneself as a special layer, designed to lead society.
• legitimacy of the elite, more or less widespread recognition by the masses of its right to political leadership;
• structural constancy of the elite, its power relations. Although the personal composition of the elite changes, its relations of domination are fundamentally unchanged;
• formation and change of elites in the course of the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities strive to occupy the dominant privileged position, but no one wants to voluntarily cede their posts and position to them.

Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors and illiberalism (ignoring the personal freedom of each person), as well as for overestimating the role of leaders, underestimating the activity of the masses and insufficiently taking into account the evolution of society.

To overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellians, the so-called elite value theories. They, like the Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, however, they significantly soften their position in relation to democracy, they strive to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern democratic states.

The diverse value concepts of the elites differ significantly in the degree of their aristocracy, attitude towards the masses, democracy, and so on. However, they also have a number of common settings:

• 1. The elite is the most valuable element of society, possessing high abilities and indicators in the most important areas of activity for the entire state.
• 2. The dominant position of the elite is in the interests of the whole society, since it is the most productive and enterprising part of the population, moreover, it usually has higher moral aspirations. The mass is not a motor, but only the wheel of history, a guide to the life of decisions made by the elites.
• 3. The formation of the 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 its worthy representatives, a rational, most productive elite.
• 4. Elitism naturally follows from equality of opportunity and does not contradict modern representative democracy. Social equality should be understood as equality of opportunity, not of results and social status. Since people are not equal physically, intellectually, in terms of their vital energy and activity, it is important for democracy to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will come to the finish line at different times, with different results.

The value theories of the elite consider the evolution of the ruling stratum as a result of changes in the needs of the social system and the value orientations of people. In the course of development, many old ones die off and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the carriers of the most important qualities for their time by new people who meet modern requirements.

The value theories of the elite claim to be the most consistent with the realities of a modern democratic society. Their ideal, as one of the authors of this theory, the German thinker V. Roike (1899-1966), writes, "it is a healthy calm society with an inevitable hierarchical structure, in which the individual has the happiness of knowing his place, and the elite with internal authority." Essentially the same ideas about society are held by modern neoconservatives. They argue that elitism is necessary for democracy. But the elite itself should serve as a moral example for other citizens and inspire respect for itself. The true elite does not rule, but directs the masses with their voluntary consent, expressed in free elections. High prestige is a necessary condition for democratic elitism.

Value ideas about elites underlie concepts of democratic elitism, widely used in the modern world. Prominent representatives of this trend are American scientists R. Dahl, S.M. Lipset, L. Ziegler and others.

Elite theories of democracy see the ruling stratum not only as a group with the qualities necessary for governance, but also as a defender of democratic values, able to contain the ideological and political irrationalism, emotional imbalance and radicalism often inherent in the masses. In the 1970s and 1980s, assertions about the comparative democratism of the elite and the authoritarianism of the masses were largely refuted by empirical research.

It turned out that representatives of the elites usually outperform the lower strata of society in accepting liberal democratic values ​​(freedom of the individual, speech, press, political competition, etc.). But along with him in political tolerance, tolerance for other people's opinions, in condemnation of dictatorship, etc., but they are more conservative in the issue of recognizing and implementing the socio-economic habits of citizens: to work, strike, organize in a trade union, social security and etc.

Some democratic principles of the value theory of the elite develop and significantly enrich concepts of plurality, pluralism of elites(representatives of Western sociology - O. Stammer, D. Riesman, S. Keller and others). Some researchers regard them as a denial of the elitist theory, although, in this case, it would be more correct to speak only of a denial of a number of rigid guidelines of the classical Machiavellian school of eligism.

The concept of plurality of elites is often called functional theories of the elite. They are based on the following postulates:

• 1. Denial of the elite as a single privileged relatively cohesive group. There are many elites. The influence of each of them is limited to its specific field of activity. None of them is able to dominate in all areas of life. The pluralism of elites is determined by the complex social division of labor and the diversity of the social structure. Each of the many maternal, basic ipynii - professional, regional, religious, demographic and others - singles out its own elite, which expresses its interests, protects values ​​and at the same time actively influences its development.
• 2. Elites are under the control of mother troupes. Through various democratic mechanisms: elections, referendums, polls, the press, pressure groups, etc. - it is possible to stop or even prevent the operation of the “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” discovered by R. Michels and keep the elites under the influence of the masses.
• 3. There is elite competition, reflecting the economic and social competition in society. It makes it possible for the elites to be accountable to the masses, and prevents the formation of a single ruling elite lpyniibi. This competition develops on the basis of the recognition by all its participants of the "democratic rules of the game", the requirements of the law.
• 4. In a modern democratic society, power is scattered among diverse social groups and institutions, which, through direct participation, pressure, the use of blocs and alliances, can veto objectionable decisions. Defend your interests, find mutually acceptable compromises. Power relations themselves are fluid. They are created for well-defined decisions and can be replaced to make other decisions. This weakens the concentration of power and prevents the formation of stable dominant socio-political positions and a stable ruling stratum.
• 5. Differences between the elite and the masses are relative, conditional and often rather blurred. In a modern legal social state, citizens can very freely be part of the elite, participate in decision-making. main subject political life- not elites, but interest groups. The differences between the elite and the masses are based mainly on unequal interest in decision-making. Access to leadership opens not only wealth and high social status, but above all personal abilities, knowledge, activity, etc.

The concept of a plurality of elites is an important integral part ideological and theoretical arsenal of pluralistic democracy. However, they largely idealize reality. Numerous studies testify to the obvious unevenness of the influence of various social strata on politics. Given this fact, some supporters of pluralistic elitism propose to single out the most influential, “strategic” elites, “whose judgments, decisions and actions have important predetermining consequences for many members of society” (S. Keller).

A kind of ideological antipode of pluralistic elitism are left-liberal theories of the elite. The most important representative of this trend is the American sociologist R. Mills (1916-1962), who, as far back as the middle of the past century, tried to prove that the United States is ruled not by many, but by one ruling elite. Liberal theories are often referred to as the Machiavellian school of elite research. Indeed, these two directions have a lot in common: the recognition of a single, relatively cohesive, privileged ruling elite, its structural constancy, group self-awareness, and so on.

However, left-liberal eligism also has significant differences, its own specific features. These include:

• 1. Criticism of the elitism of society from a democratic standpoint. First of all, this criticism concerned the system of political power in the United States. According to R. Mills, it is a pyramid of three levels: the lower one, which is occupied by a mass of passive, virtually disenfranchised population; average, reflecting group interests; and the upper one, where the most important political decisions are made. It is the top level of power that is occupied by the ruling elite, which essentially does not allow the rest of the population to determine real politics. The possibilities for the masses to influence the elite through elections and other democratic institutions are very limited.
• 2. Structural-functional approach to the elite, its interpretation as a consequence of occupying command positions in the social hierarchy. The ruling elite, writes R. Mills, “consists of people occupying positions that enable them to rise above the environment of ordinary people and make decisions that have major consequences ... This is due to the fact that they command the most important hierarchical institutions and organizations of modern society ... They occupy strategic command posts in the social system, in which are concentrated the effective means of providing the power, wealth and fame that they enjoy. It is the occupation of key positions in the economy, politics, military and other institutions that provides people with power and thus constitutes the elite. This understanding of the elite distinguishes left-liberal concepts from Machiavellian and other theories that derive elitism from the special psychological and social qualities of people.
• 3. There is a profound difference between the elite and the masses. Natives of the people can enter the elite only by occupying high positions in the social hierarchy. However, they have relatively little real chance of doing so.
• 4. The ruling elite is not limited to the political elite, which directly makes the most important state decisions. It has a complex structure. In American society, according to R. Mills, its core is made up of corporate leaders, politicians, senior civil servants and senior officers. They are supported by intellectuals who are well-established within the existing system. The unifying factor of the ruling elite is not only a socio-political consensus, a common interest in maintaining their privileged position, the stability of the existing social system, but also the proximity of social status, educational and cultural level, range of interests and spiritual values, lifestyle, as well as personal and related connections. Within the ruling elite there are complex hierarchical relationships. However, in general, there is no unambiguous economic determination in it. Although Mills sharply criticizes the ruling elite of the United States, reveals the connection between politicians and large owners, he is not a supporter of the class approach, which considers the political elite only as spokesmen for the interests of monopoly capital.

Proponents of the liberal elite theory usually deny the direct connection of the economic elite with political leaders. The actions of the latter, they believe, are not determined by the big owners. However, the political leaders of developed capitalism agree with the basic principles of the existing market system and see it as the optimal form of social organization for modern society. Therefore, in political activity, they seek to guarantee the stability of a social order based on private property in a pluralistic democracy.

In Western political science, the main postulates of the left-liberal concept of the elite are sharply criticized, especially the statements about the closeness of the ruling elite, the direct entry of big business into it, etc.

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's life, is carried out by people who have power resources or political capital. These people are called the political class, for which politics becomes a profession. The political class is the ruling class, since it manages and disposes of the resources of power. Its main difference lies in the institutionalization, which consists in the system of public posts occupied by its representatives. The formation of a political class is carried out in two ways: by appointment to public office (such representatives of the political class are called bureaucracy) and through elections to certain power 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 who hold leadership positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations, etc. and influencing policy making and implementation in the country. This is an organized minority, a controlling group that has real political power, the ability to influence all the 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 a significant amount of political power in its hands, ensures integration, subordination and reflection of the interests of various strata of society in political settings and creates a mechanism for implementing political ideas. In other words, the elite is the highest part of a social group, class, political public organization.

The word "elite" in translation from French means "the best", "selective", "chosen". In everyday language it has two meanings. The first of them reflects the possession of some intensely, clearly and maximally expressed features, the highest on a particular scale of measurements. In this sense, 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, by virtue of possessing special qualities, to govern them. Such an 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 - "the power of the best".) In political science, the term "elite" is used only in the first, ethically neutral sense. 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 exclude leveling, averaging in assessing the influence of people on power, reflects the uneven distribution of power in society, competitiveness and competition 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 equality and equivalence or even the priority of politics in relation to the economy and social structure society. Therefore, this concept is incompatible with the ideas of economic and social determinism, represented, in particular, by Marxism, which interprets politics as just a superstructure on the economic basis, as a concentrated expression of the economy and class interests. Because of this, and also because of the unwillingness of the ruling nomenklatura elite to be the object of scientific research, the concept of the political elite in Soviet social science was considered as pseudo-scientific 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 originated outside France in ancient times. Even at the time of the decomposition of the tribal system, views appeared that divided society into higher and lower, noble and rabble, aristocracy and ordinary people. These ideas received the most consistent justification and expression from Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, Carley-la, Nietzsche. However, this kind of elitist theories have not yet received any serious sociological justification. The first modern, classical concepts of elites arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are associated with the names of Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels.

The characteristic features of the political elite are the following:

• it is a small, rather 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 the development of society and is due to 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 the division of labor requires professional employment in managerial work.

· The high importance of managerial work and its appropriate stimulation.

· Ample opportunities to use managerial 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 later (mainly after the Second World War) empirical studies of groups that lead the state or claim to be. Modern theories of elites are diverse. Historically, the first group of theories that have not lost their modern significance are the concepts of the Machiavellian school. They share the following ideas:

1. The special qualities of the elite associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to manage, or at least to struggle for power.

2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of a group united not only by a common professional status, social position and interests, but also by an elitist self-consciousness, the perception of oneself as a special layer, called 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. Such a division naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite changes, its dominant attitudes towards the masses are 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 relationship of domination and subordination between them and the common people has always been preserved.

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

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

Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, anti-democratism 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 unfounded.

value theories.

The value theories of the elite try to overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellians. They, like the Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, however, soften their position in relation to democracy, seek 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, and so on. However, they also have a number of the following general settings:

1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and indicators in the most important areas of activity for the whole society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on meeting its most important needs. In the course of development, many old ones die off and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the carriers 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 striving to realize their selfish group interests, but the cooperation of people who care, first of all, about the common good.

3. The relationship between the elite and the masses is not so much the nature of political or social domination, but of leadership, which implies managerial influence based on the consent and voluntary obedience of the ruled 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, 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 productive 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 work, 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, social status. Since people are not equal physically, intellectually, in terms of their vital energy and activity, it is important for a democratic state to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will come to the finish line at different times and with different results. Social “champions” and outsiders 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 should 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 come from Joseph Schumpeter's understanding of democracy as competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters. Proponents of democratic elitism, referring to the results of empirical research, argue that real democracy needs both elites and mass political apathy, since too high political participation threatens the stability of democracy. Elites are necessary first of all 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 ruling stratum not only possesses the properties necessary for governing, but 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. assertions about comparative democratism of the elite and authoritarianism of the masses have been largely refuted by specific studies. It turned out that although representatives of the elites usually surpass the lower strata of society in accepting liberal democratic values ​​(freedom of the individual, speech, competition, etc.), in political tolerance, tolerance for other people's opinions, in condemning dictatorship, etc., but they are more conservative in recognizing the socio-economic rights of citizens: to work, strike, organize in a trade union, social security, etc. In addition, some scientists (P. Bahrakh, F. Naschold) have shown the possibility of increasing the stability and efficiency of the political system by expanding mass political participation.

Elite pluralism concepts

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 elitist thought. They are often referred to as functional theories of the elite. They do not deny the elite theory as a whole, although they require a radical revision of a number of its fundamental, classical attitudes. The pluralistic concept of the elite is based on the following postulates:

1. Interpretation of political elites as functional elites. Qualification readiness 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 the management of important political and social processes or in influencing them.

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 that, with the help of direct participation, pressure, the use of blocs and alliances, can veto objectionable 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 - singles out its own elite that protects its values ​​and interests.

3. The division of society into the elite and the masses is relatively, conditionally and often blurry. Between them there is a relationship of representation rather than domination or permanent leadership. Elites are under the control of maternal groups. Through a variety of democratic mechanisms - elections, referenda, polls, the press, pressure groups, etc. This is facilitated by the competition of elites, reflecting the 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 be part of the elite and participate in decision-making. The main subject of political life is not elites, but interest groups. The differences between the elite and the masses are based mainly on unequal interest 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. To speak of their social dominance is unjustified.

The concepts of elite pluralism are widely used to theoretically substantiate modern Western democracies. However, these theories largely idealize reality. Numerous empirical studies testify to the obvious unevenness of the influence of various social strata on politics, the predominance of the influence of capital, representatives of the military-industrial complex and some other groups. With this in mind, some proponents of pluralistic elitism propose to single out 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 of pluralistic elitism are the left-liberal theories of the elite. The most important representative of this trend, Charles Wright Mills back in the 50s. tried to prove that the United States is not controlled by many, but by one ruling elite. Left-liberal elitism, while sharing some of the provisions of the Machiavellian school, also has specific, distinctive features:

1. The main elite-forming feature is not outstanding individual qualities, but the possession of command positions, 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, which directly makes government decisions, but also includes corporate leaders, politicians, senior civil servants and senior officers. They are supported by intellectuals who are well-established within the existing system.

The unifying 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.

Within the ruling elite there are complex hierarchical relationships. Although Mills sharply criticizes the US ruling elite, 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 spokesmen for the interests of monopoly capital.

3. Deep difference between the elite and the masses. Natives of 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 possibilities for the masses to influence the elite through elections and other democratic institutions are very limited. With the help of money, knowledge, and a well-established mechanism for manipulating consciousness, the ruling elite controls the masses virtually uncontrollably.

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

5. The primary function of the ruling elite in society is to ensure their own domination. It is to this function that the solution of managerial problems is subordinated. Mills denies the inevitability of society's elitism and criticizes it from consistently democratic positions.

Supporters of the left-liberal theory of the elite usually deny the direct connection of the economic elite with political leaders, whose actions, according to, for example, Ralph Miliband, are not determined by large owners. However, the political leaders of developed capitalist countries agree with the basic principles of the market system and see it as the optimal form of social organization for modern society. Therefore, in their activities they strive to guarantee the stability of a 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 sharply criticized, especially assertions about the closeness 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 of the elite.

Points of view on the content of the category "elite" differ from each other mainly in their attitude to the ideal principles of recruiting the elite and the corresponding axiological attitudes:

Some researchers believe that the true elite should be distinguished by the nobility of their origin;

Others categorize only the richest people countries;

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

The most gifted representatives of society.

Obviously, the top 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 control layer. Accordingly, it should be considered not only as a “caste” or a clan of people engaged in “dirty business”, but also as a recruited stratum, called by society, with undoubted privileges and endowed with great responsibility. The basic parameters for the classification of elites can be all the characteristics listed at the beginning previous section. Here are several types of elite classification:

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

The ways of replenishing the elite, the functional features of the society to which this elite stratum belongs, make it possible to speak of open and closed elites.

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

The combination of the most important stratification factors (income, status, education, professional prestige) among representatives of the upper and middle strata (income, status, education, professional prestige) in different proportions allows us to speak of the upper elite, which directly makes political decisions, and the middle elite, the upper part of the middle class.

While the Western elites, as a rule, are oligarchic groups of proprietors, the replenishment of the US and Western European elites 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 single out the following most significant functions of the political elite:

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

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

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

The highest political elite includes leading political leaders and those who hold high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (the immediate environment of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of state authorities, leading political parties, factions in parliament). Numerically, this is a rather limited circle of people who make the most significant political decisions for the entire society, concerning the fate of millions of people 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 a huge number of elected officials: deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council, heads of administrations and deputies of the legislative assemblies of the subjects of the federation, mayors of large cities, leaders of various political parties and socio-political movements, heads of constituencies. 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 the level of education, more often show dissatisfaction with their prestige, social status and gravitate towards 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 of public opinion, the preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. This "sub-elite" usually surpasses the top elite in terms of awareness and ability to act in solidarity. However, the development of this trend, as a rule, is held back by authoritarian political regimes, which seek by all means to keep the "sub-elite" in line with their policies. Therefore, the process of forming a stable democratic elite is very complicated. And only this type of political elite is able to have a close relationship with the people, the highest level of interaction with all sectors of society, perceive political opponents and find the most acceptable compromise solutions.

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

Features of political elites in Russia.

Speaking about the Russian ruling political elite, first of all it is impossible not to notice that the burden of historical traditions of political culture in many ways, if not in everything, 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, except for those that were successfully used both by themselves and their predecessors. It is an undeniable fact, proven many times historically, that a political culture takes shape over the centuries and can be changed over time. a short time impossible. That is why the political development of today's Russia has taken on such a habitual character for 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, state power in Russia is characterized by three main features:

1). Power is indivisible and not displaced (in fact, we can say hereditary);

2). Power is completely autonomous, and also completely beyond the control of society;

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

It is precisely under these essential characteristics of the Russian government that the principles of liberal democracy are adjusted, which turns into its complete opposite. On this moment the central problem of the Russian political system is the exercise of power (primarily its separability and displacement). The historical experience of Russian parliamentarism and its development confirms one interesting feature: the confrontation, and sometimes a violent conflict, between the executive power, as the leading one, and the marginal legislative power. The suppression or even destruction of one branch of power actually consolidates the omnipotence of the other, which, however, based on world experience, leads to the defeat of the current regime. There can be no complete harmony between these branches of power, but their clear separation ensures society's control over state power.

The structure of political elites in Russia.

The political ruling elite of the Russian Federation consists of a number of groups. At the same time, which is typical, the ideological foundations of these groups do not play a special role; in reality, they act only as an ideological veil in political discussions. The ideas of justice, public order, and the efficiency of power are shared by all parties, which makes them look the same and hardly distinguishable from each other. , which indicates the growing politicization of public sentiment.

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

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

In addition, we 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 inherent in it:

• activities 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 the 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 the political structure of Russia, two main blocks can be distinguished, mostly constantly colliding and occasionally cooperating with each other - these are the political elites and the electorate of the capital cities and provinces. In the provinces, at the level of regions, autonomies, the ethnic factor has recently come to the fore due to direct national demarcation. This is precisely where the grouping of public opinion and political elites around national-patriotic parties, movements and blocs, noted above, occurs.

Conclusion.

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

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

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

This process has positive aspects. The strengthening of the state and the political elite will lead to an increase in the efficiency of the legal system. And in this regard, one more false thesis about Russia can be challenged: that the strengthening of 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 an increase in corruption and 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 state power, improving the socio-economic situation in the country, and some others?

When V. Putin came 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, the main political parties, the business elite, the majority of regional leaders, and the main electronic media under his control.

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

Bibliography:

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

Textbook In 3 hours. 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. Solovyov. Textbook "Introduction to Political Science."

Moscow: Aspect-Press, 2000.

4. The Internet site www.33333.ru is only about politics.

6.1. On the concepts of the ruling and political elite

Politics, which is one of the spheres of society's life, is carried out by people who have power resources or political capital. These people are called political class for whom politics becomes a profession. The political class is the ruling class, since it manages and disposes of the resources of power. It is heterogeneous due to differences in the possession of power, the nature of activities, methods of recruitment, etc. Its main difference lies in the institutionalization, which consists in the system of public posts occupied by its representatives. The formation of a political class is carried out in two ways: by appointment to public office (such representatives of the political class are called bureaucracy) and through elections to certain power structures.

In addition to the political class, politics can be influenced by individuals, groups that have either official powers or informal opportunities. T.I. Zaslavskaya calls such a set of individuals and groups ruling elite, to which she classifies politicians holding the highest government posts, the upper echelon of the bureaucracy, and the business elite. Since the most significant resource of the ruling elite is political capital, or power, which gives the legitimate right to manage the property and finances of the state, there is a direct or latent connection of all groups of the ruling elite with state structures.

O. Kryshtanovskaya gives such a definition elite: “it is the ruling group of society, which is the upper stratum of the political class. The elite stands at the top of the state pyramid, controlling the main, strategic resources of power, making decisions at the national level. The elite not only rules society, but also governs the political class, and also creates such forms of state organization in which its positions are exclusive. The political class forms the elite and at the same time is the source of its replenishment. From her point of view, any elite is ruling, i.e. if the elite does not rule, then it is not the elite. The remaining members of the political class - professional managers who are not related to the ruling elite - constitute the political and administrative elite, whose role is to prepare general political decisions and organize their implementation in those structures of the state apparatus that they directly supervise.

The elite is a full-fledged social group with a complex structure. Various parts of a single ruling elite are called sub-elites which can be sectoral (political, economic), functional (administrators, ideologists, security officials), hierarchical (sub-elite layers), recruitment (appointees, elected). According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, "the elite cannot but be political." At the same time, it is possible to use this term to refer to a sub-elite group whose functions include the direct management of the political process.

In this context, one can characterize political elite as a relatively small stratum of people occupying leading positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations and influencing the development and implementation of policy in the country.

The political elite includes high-ranking professional politicians, endowed with power functions and powers, senior civil servants involved in the development and implementation of political programs, social development strategies. It can be divided into groups corresponding to the branches of government - legislative, executive, judicial, and also according to its location - federal and regional.

The authority of the elite is the most important condition for its stay in power and the preservation of power; the ruling elite must be legitimate. When the political or state community ceases to sanction the power of a given political elite, it loses the social basis of its existence and eventually loses power.

Political elites can come to power through elections by winning political struggles against other organized minorities that claim to be the political control group. In this case, the interaction between the elite and the masses is legal and legitimate. However, the political elite can come to power in a revolutionary way or through a coup d'état. In such a situation, the new political elite seeks to gain the necessary legitimacy through informal recognition from the unorganized majority. In any case, the relationship of the elite with the masses is based on the principles of leadership and authoritative leadership, and not blind obedience. The legitimation of the political power of the elite distinguishes it from the oligarchy.

In countries with a legitimate existence of power, the content and boundaries of the functions performed by the political elite are determined by the constitution of the country. However, in real life there are frequent cases of discrepancies between constitutions and real power. This is possible in the event of a sharp change in the political situation, when the changes are not yet reflected in the constitution, as well as in the event of deviation from the norms of the constitution. For example, the Constitution of the USSR proclaimed that power at all levels belongs to the Soviets, but the real political picture did not confirm this.

6.2. Characteristics and functions of the ruling Russian elite

The elite is not uniform. Within the ruling elite there is a small cohesive group standing at the very top of the power pyramid. T. Zaslavskaya calls it the “upper (sub-elite) layer”, O. Kryshtanovskaya - “top elite”, L. Shevtsova - “super-elite”. This group, as a rule, consists of 20-30 people and is the most closed, close-knit and hard-to-reach for research.

To the most important characteristics of the elite researchers attribute cohesion, awareness of their group interests, a developed network of informal communications, the presence of esoteric norms of behavior and code language, hidden from outside observers and transparent to the initiates, the absence of a clear line separating official activity and private life.

For Russia, as well as for other post-communist states, there are common features that determine the peculiarity of the ruling elite: strengthening the role of the executive branch, increasing the importance of informal ties and procedures, accelerating the circulation of elites, exacerbating intra-elite rivalry and increasing mobility.

Under elite mobility understand the entry into the elite, the movement of personnel within the political system and the exit from the elite. Thus, mobility can be divided into upward, horizontal and downward mobility. Elite mobility in Russia has significant differences from the mobility of other social groups, which, according to O. Kryshtanovskaya, is due to a number of factors:

1. Higher competition between candidates for a position compared to other groups, which occurs at all levels of the political hierarchy.

2. Uncertainty of requirements for candidates who must meet conditions that are not announced anywhere.

3. Elite mobility is subject to much more regulation and planning than other professional mobility, since there is an institutionalized personnel reserve to replenish vacant positions.

4. The mobility of the elite is regulated not so much by labor legislation as by intra-group norms.

5. Unlike all other professions, joining the elite is endowing the individual with primary political capital, which he can develop or leave unchanged.

Some researchers note changes in the type of organization of the power elite. So, O.V. Gaman-Golutvina distinguishes two types: bureaucratic and feudal (oligarchic). Bureaucratic is based on the delimitation of the functions of economic and political management, oligarchic is based on their merger. Historically, the basis of the Russian state was the universality of obligations to the state, which implied the service principle of recruiting elites, which ensured the priority of the political elite over the economic one. As a result of the reforms carried out, the service principle began to be replaced by the oligarchic one. As a result, the model of elite formation was reproduced, which is characteristic of the feudal, and not the modern West. One of the most characteristic features the modern ruling elite of Russia is a shadow merging of state power with business. This process covered all levels of state power. Place and connections in the political system have become the main factor in the multiplication of property, and property has become a powerful source of political influence.

Upkeep political functions political regime has a great influence. T.I. Zaslavskaya considers the development, legitimization and implementation of a general strategy for reforming society to be the main functions of the elite in the transformation process. A.V.Malkoidentifies the following most significant functions of the political elite:

strategic - determination of 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, the implementation of political decisions in life;

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

To these functions, one should also add 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.

In order to effectively implement these functions, the elite must be characterized by such qualities as a modern mentality, a state type of thinking, readiness to protect national interests, etc.

6.3. Formation of the federal elite

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

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

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

Researchers distinguish between two stages in the formation of the post-Soviet elite: "Yeltsin's" and "Putin's". So, O. Kryshtanovskaya - the author of the book "Anatomy of the Russian Elite" - notes that during the nine years of his reign (1991-1999) B. Yeltsin could not integrate the supreme power. At the same time, no state structure has become dominant. In a power vacuum, informal groups and clans assumed state functions, competing with each other for the right to speak on behalf of the president. According to the scientist, “in the Yeltsin period there was a collapse of the supreme power. The diffusion of power has led not to a democratic separation of powers, but to managerial chaos.”

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

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

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

Top political elite includes leading political leaders and those who hold high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (the immediate environment of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of state authorities, leading political parties, factions in parliament) . Numerically, this is a rather limited circle of people who make the most significant political decisions for the whole society, concerning the fate of millions of people who are significant for the entire state. Belonging to the highest elite is determined by reputation (advisers, consultants to the president) or position in the power structure. According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, members of the Security Council, which in modern Russia is the prototype of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, should be attributed to the top leadership.

The size of the ruling elite is not constant. Thus, the nomenclature of the Central Committee of the CPSU (in 1981) included approximately 400 thousand people. The highest nomenclature (the nomenclature of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU) included approximately 900 people. The nomenclature of the secretariat of the Central Committee consisted of 14-16 thousand people. The accounting and control nomenclature (the nomenclature of departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU) included 250 thousand people. The rest was made up of the nomenklatura of the lower party committees. Thus, the political class in Soviet times was approximately 0.1% of the total population of the country.

In 2000, the size of the political class (the number of civil servants) tripled (while the country's population halved) and began to amount to 1,200,000 people. or 0.8% of the total population. The number of the ruling elite at the same time increased from 900 to 1060 people.

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

Gradually, parliamentary and governmental careers became two different ways of sewerage to the top, which was not typical for the Soviet elite, for which the parliamentary mandate was a corresponding attribute of the nomenklatura status. Now there is a new professional group within the elite - elected officials.

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

For parliamentarians, there remains a fairly high percentage of those who entered the elite back in Soviet times. IN State Duma the first convocation (1993) was 37.1%, the third convocation (1999) - 32%; in the Federation Council in 1993 - 60.1%, in 2002 - 39.9%.

Researchers notice another feature: if in the early 1990s. the share of party and Komsomol functionaries fell, then their share among the deputies of both chambers grew to almost 40%. After 10 years of the post-Soviet period, involvement in the nomenclature has ceased to be a stain on political career. A number of studies (S.A. Granovsky, E. Schneider) show that the foundation of the new Russian ruling elite is mainly made up of representatives of the second and third echelons of the old Soviet nomenklatura, passing on the special knowledge and experience that it needs to the new political elite.

As part of the new political elite in Russia, there have been significant changes in educational, age and professional plans.

Thus, the government and the elite in the regions have become almost ten years younger. At the same time, the parliament has aged a little, which is explained by its artificial rejuvenation during the Brezhnev period. The termination of quotas by age freed the highest legislative power of the country, both from Komsomol members and from quota young workers and collective farmers.

B. Yeltsin brought young scientists, brilliantly educated city politicians, economists, and lawyers closer to him. In his environment, the proportion of rural residents fell sharply. Despite the fact that the elite has always been one of the most educated groups in society, nevertheless, in the 1990s. there was a sharp jump in the educational qualification of the elite. Thus, well-known scientists and public figures are part of B. Yeltsin's inner circle. More than half of the presidential team of B.N. Yeltsin consisted of doctors of sciences. The percentage of those with degree in government and among party leaders.

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

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

The last wave of the ruling elite is also characterized by an increase in the share of countrymen of the head of state (from 13.2% under B. Yeltsin to 21.3% under V. Putin) and an increase in the share of businessmen (from 1.6% under B. Yeltsin to 11.3 % under V. Putin).

6.4. Regional political elite

At the regional level, a new political elite was formed in different subjects at different times. This process was associated with the transition to an elective system for the formation of the regional elite. The heads of executive power in Moscow and Leningrad, as well as the president of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, were elected on June 12, 1991. After the failure of the putsch on August 21, 1991, the position of the head of the administration as the head of the executive power was introduced in the territories, regions and districts by a decree of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. The presidential decree of November 25, 1991 determined the procedure for appointing heads of administrations. By January 1992, the new government was established in almost all territories, regions and autonomous regions. True, it was only partially new. Half of the heads of administrations were appointed from among the former heads of executive or representative bodies, about a fifth consisted of employees of the Soviet apparatus for more than low level and only a third consisted of new appointees - directors of enterprises, employees of scientific institutions and other representatives of the non-political sphere.

IN autonomous republics ah, the head was the president, who was elected in popular elections, which contributed to the transformation of the Soviet model into a democratic one. By the end of 1994, most of the leaders of the autonomous republics were elected by popular vote.

In 1992-1993 there was a struggle between the president and the Supreme Council for influence on the formation of the heads of regional administrations. This struggle ended after the dissolution of the representative body of power with the adoption of a presidential decree “On the procedure for appointing and dismissing heads of administrations of territories, regions, autonomous districts, cities federal significance”, issued on October 7, 1993. The decree stated that the heads of administrations are appointed and dismissed by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Government of the Russian Federation.

However, electoral trends were gaining momentum. Therefore, in a number of regions, as an exception, back in 1992-1993. the supreme power allowed the elections of heads of administrations. This process continued to develop and ended with the adoption of a presidential decree on September 17, 1995, which determined the term for the election of heads of administrations of the subjects of the federation appointed by the president - December 1996. Thus, the transition to the elective system of heads of executive power of the subjects of the federation was carried out. The last appointment of the head of the administration took place in July 1997 in the Kemerovo region.

The formation of the regional elite was continued by the elections of people's representatives, which, after the dissolution of councils at all levels at the end of 1993, became full-fledged legislative bodies of power.

The elections were one of the most significant achievements of democracy in Russia, which led to profound changes in the entire political system. The consequences of such a transition were both positive and negative. On the one hand, a basis was created for the separation of powers, the formation of civil society, and the creation of equal subjects of the federation. On the other hand, the election of the heads of subjects destabilized the political situation, allowing the governors to become independent from the center. There was a danger of a new wave of "parade of sovereignties", which could end in the collapse of the country. The federal government has practically no levers of influence on the regional elite.

In December 1995, the principle of formation of the Federation Council changed. In accordance with the new regulation, the upper house of the Russian parliament began to be formed by delegating two leaders of the subject of the federation - the heads of the executive and legislative branches. In the Federation Council, interregional associations began to form on territorial and economic principles, which threatened the center with the loss of political and financial control.

To prevent negative trends, new president Vladimir Putin initiated political reforms in order to strengthen the vertical of power. In 2000, the procedure for forming the Federation Council changed: they began to delegate to the upper house of parliament one representative each from the executive and legislative authorities of the subject of the federation, but not the first persons, as was the case before. At the end of 2004, a federal law was adopted that changed the procedure for electing the heads of subjects of the federation: they began to be elected by the relevant legislative assemblies on the proposal of the president of the country. The last nationwide elections for the head of the administration were held in March 2005 in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug.

As a result, power federal center was restored, and the heads of regions became completely dependent on the president. The danger of the collapse of the country was overcome by abandoning the democratic procedure of popular elections.

An analysis of regional leaders indicates that the vast majority of governors fell into the elite long before they were appointed to the post of head of the region. So, according to the data given in the study by O. Kryshtanovskaya, in 2002 the average number of years in the elite of regional leaders before their appointment (election) as the head of the region was 15 years, and the average number of years in the post of head of a subject of the federation was 6 years.

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

The weight of the Soviet nomenklatura still remains very high. In 2002, 65.9% of the heads of the subjects of the federation were previously members of the Soviet nomenclature (in 1992 - 78.2%, in 1997 - 72.7%).

As O. Kryshtanovskaya notes, “the paradox is that it was not elections, but appointments that brought new people to the top.”

Describing professional qualities regional political elite, many researchers note its redistributive (rental) relation to economic activity. At the same time, one should note such a trend as the promotion of an influential layer of intellectual, political, cultural, professional, highly educated leaders who form the core of the regional political elite. As S.A. Granovsky notes, “the nomenklatura sources of the current government, which are not easy to get rid of, are a brake on reforms that impedes the true democratization of society, the transformation not only of the political, but also of all other spheres of our life. Russia has not yet formed an elite that would correspond to the new statehood that has already proved itself.

An important characteristic of the elite is its mentality. Practical orientations and their real implementation in the affairs of the regional political and administrative elites are reflected both in their own worldview and in the assessments of the population. Describing the mental features of the regional administrative and political elites, one should note their federalist thinking, the main parameters of which are the preservation of the integrity of the Russian Federation, the problems of equality of all subjects, the priority of federal laws over republican ones.

One can state a significant weakening of centro-paternalistic hopes among the regional political elite. In the minds of the elites, hopes for the possibilities of the center and their own forces in the development of the economy and economic ties were almost leveled. In many regions, the mood of "reliance on one's own strength" already prevails. Thus, ethno-federalist, economic-federalist and political-federalist factors turn out to be conjugated into one complex and are now acting in a single vector, contributing to the faster formation of the federalist paradigm of thinking.

On the other hand, as the most important characteristics of the political mentality of the ruling elite, many researchers emphasize its unprincipledness and "servility". This leads to unconditional loyalty to the President, on the one hand, and a stable priority of clan interests over national interests, on the other.

6.5. Circulation and reproduction of the elite

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

Models circulation And reproduction elite groups should be supplemented with a third element - the expansion of the elite composition. The increase in the elite ranks in the first half of the 1990s. happened more than twice. There has been a significant increase in the number of positions that are considered "elite". This is due to the growth in the number of new economic structures, whose leaders can be attributed to the new economic elite. But it is no less true and due to the growth of political and administrative structures.

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

In the 1990s accelerated pace elite traffic(the movement of the elite - a term introduced into circulation by O. Kryshtanovskaya) required a change in approaches to working with personnel. Under B. Yeltsin, there were frequent resignations, reshuffles of high-ranking officials, whom he first brought closer to himself, then became disappointed and changed them to others. The rapidity of personnel replacements led to the destruction of the personnel reserve that helped maintain succession. There was a need to create some reservations for high-ranking officials who had fallen out of power. As a result, structures such as "state business" were created - commercial organizations based on state resources and having multiple privileges compared to private business, as well as foundations, associations, socio-political organizations, which were led by retirees. Last years deputy activity acts as a kind of reservation, which provides the necessary honor to all former officials.

With the widespread use of alternative elections, the ruling elite no longer had complete control over the removal of unwanted individuals from the elite. Officials who lost their positions in executive bodies could be elected to the federal or regional parliament, go into big business and influence the political situation with the help of economic resources, or create a political party and actively participate in political life.

If in Soviet times, resignation meant "political death", then in the post-Soviet period, returns to power began to occur. Thus, in the government elite in 1992, the share of return was 12.1%, for the government in 1999 - 8%.

Under V. Putin, the personnel situation begins to change gradually. The personnel reserve is being restored, the civil service is being strengthened, and loyalty to the regime becomes a guarantee of status stability. The administrative reform, launched in 2004 and designed to reduce the number of bureaucrats, only restructured departments and significantly increased the salaries of civil servants. In the 2000s increases not vertical, but horizontal mobility in the elite. So, former governors become members of the Federation Council, former ministers- deputies, former officials of the presidential administration go into state business.

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

Changing the norms and rules of power interactions largely stems from the process elite reconversion(i.e. the transfer of capital from one form to another). The decisive element of this process was the "capitalization" of elite groups. It manifested itself, first of all, in two phenomena. First, part of the political elite converted its political influence into economic capital. Representatives of the political nomenklatura themselves entered the new business elite or patronized close relatives in the economic sphere. Secondly, "capitalization" touched the political elite itself - through the expansion of corruption. Corruption has always existed, but it is in modern Russia that it has become larger and more open than ever.

As a result, politics has become associated with the most profitable business. On the one hand, large entrepreneurs seek state protection and try to obtain property and privileges from the state. On the other hand, politicians are no longer satisfied with the usual trappings of power and fame. Their status positions must be backed by receipts in private bank accounts. As a result, big businessmen become politically influential people, and politicians turn into very wealthy people.

The next process, which deserves special attention, is connected with the mutual relations of various elite groups. Two opposite tendencies usually collide here - fragmentation and consolidation of elites. The fragmentation hypothesis states that there is a process of pluralization of elites and the emergence of numerous pressure groups and interests.

Confrontation between the legislature, presidential structures and the government, federal and regional bodies state administration, party groups of the left and right, political, military and economic elites, industry lobbies representing various economic complexes - all this contributes to the situation of power pluralism. This situation can be seen as a manifestation of the democratization of society, but more often it is seen as evidence of a power vacuum and a lack of effective governance.

The struggle for power between the "old" and "new" elites also leads to fragmentation. The goal of the first is to retain power, the second is to seize key positions in the state and oust their opponents from their posts.

Opposite assessments are expressed within the framework of the hypothesis of the consolidation of elites. It argues that the dividing lines between different elite groups are increasingly blurred, and power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of subjects. Legislatures have no special power; federal bodies retained enough administrative and financial influence over the regions to determine policy at the regional level; the military elite is still loyal and subservient to political forces; "left" and "right" party groupsdrift towards the political "centre".

The confrontation between the political and economic elites should also not be exaggerated. On the contrary, the stage of transformation of the Russian elite is characterized by the integration of the political and economic elite. The reason for this rapprochement lies in mutual benefit: the economic elite is interested in the appropriate distribution of budget funds and federal investments, a certain personnel policy, making political decisions that are beneficial for themselves, and the political elite wants to benefit from the transformation of the economy.

Thus, despite the visible opposition, there is a consolidation of elite groups.

6.6. Political corporatism

in the Western political elitethe priority is social origin, which determines the starting opportunities, conditions and guidelines for primary and secondary socialization, in contrast to the Russian one, where this factor is replaced by a previous connection with the nomenklatura elite and commitment to the leader - the leader. In other words, corporate origin.

American political scientist F. Schmitter considers corporatism“as one of the possible mechanisms that allow associations of interests to mediate between their members (individuals, families, firms, local communities, groups) and various counterparties (primarily state and government bodies).” Corporatism organically fits into the democratic legal order, as evidenced by the spread of this phenomenon in countries with developed democratic institutions, and with significant relapses in countries of unconsolidated democracy. It is especially negative in the political sphere.

Political corporatism means the dominance in the political system of a set of persons united to achieve, implement and maintain state power. The interaction of political corporations allows them to divide the power market, not allowing representatives of the general population to access it. There is a mechanism of “linking” and coordination of interests between corporations. Corporations can be built according to social-class, professional, family-countryman-mu and other characteristics, but they are always based on the unity of interests. Politic system modern Russia is an example of interacting corporations.

Political corporations, in order to be effective, must have a certain degree of monopoly on the representation of interests. This is necessary from the point of view of influencing the political decisions made, since the state power, while forming the goals and objectives of its activities (especially in the transition period, when their leading groups are formed from the plurality of interests), inevitably takes into account only those groups interests and corporations that have the appropriate resources, i.e. able to mobilize and control large sections of the population. Thus, certain corporatist representations are formed, and the state becomes a “corporatist state”. The basis of his policy in this case is not the “public interest”, but the interest of the political corporation whose representatives are currently at the helm of state power or have the greatest influence on it.

The most powerful corporations in modern Russia are those that are based on the foundation of financial and industrial groups that have huge financial resources, control the most important enterprises and industries, gradually monopolize the media market and thereby are able to influence the decision-making process on government and parliamentary channels.

Feature of the corporatist system in Russialies in the fact that it is built on the basis of the interdependence of the most influential interest groups and the state and is of a contractual nature. So, for example, the former government of V. Chernomyrdin, patronizing the Gazprom corporation, received in return the opportunity to solve problems in social policy with its help. State power in Russia, motivated by the need to overcome the crisis, provided opportunities for such a monopolization of interests in exchange for political and financial support. Therefore, corporations should be considered as the main pillar of the political regime in Russia in the 1990s.

T.I. Zaslavskaya notes that “as a result of the “market” reform of the basic institutions, the state has dissolved into private political and financial corporations… There is a certain ruling clan behind each group of ministries, regions, and industrial complexes in Russia.”

As a result of the activities of political corporations, state power may become hostage to a group of political and economic monopolists and be subjected to targeted pressure from representatives of private interests, which can lead to the oligarchization of the political regime and increased social tension in the country.

In the 2000s a new corporatist structure has emerged, associated with belonging to the special services. In this structure, there is a corporate spirit of unity inherent in the security staff. President V. Putin's statement: "there are no former Chekists" - is a confirmation of the corporate spirit of the special services, which cements the power. In such an elite, solidarity prevails. According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, despite the fact that "the whole country is becoming an arena of operational work", ... "such a government is doubly stable, especially since it is held together by the ideology of patriotism, diluted, however, with liberal economic ideas."

The Russian scientist S.P. Peregudov, summing up F. Schmitter's thoughts on corporatism, singled out several main positions that could make corporatism "new", not undermining, but strengthening democracy and social peace. “Firstly, it is the presence of independent interest groups independent of the state and their focus on interacting with it in order to strengthen social partnership and increase economic efficiency. Secondly, this is one or another degree of institutionalization of this interaction and the ability of the state to “impose” priorities dictated by national interests during the negotiation process. And, finally, thirdly, it is the observance by all parties of the obligations assumed and the corresponding system of control over their implementation. These principles, transferred to the political sphere, could prevent or weaken Negative consequences political corporatism.

6.7. Privileges as a Sign of the Political Elite

Privilege- these are legal benefits, first of all, for power structures and officials, which they need for the full implementation of their powers.

Privileges are one of the most important features of the political elite. Exclusive rights and special opportunities are closely related to the elite because it includes groups of people with natural talents, bright talents, special ideological, social and political qualities that determine the special role of people who perform the most important functions of managing society. The political elite, actively participating in the exercise of state power or in direct influence on it, expends a lot of energy, effort, and resources. In order to manage more effectively, the elite needs appropriate sources of replenishment of this energy. Therefore, the position of the elite is reinforced by its prestige, privileges, benefits, so it enjoys significant material and spiritual benefits.

Consequently, the formation of the political elite is stimulated by the fact that the high status of managerial activity is associated with the possibility of obtaining various kinds of material and moral privileges, advantages, honor, and glory.

As R. Mills writes, the ruling elite “consists of people occupying such positions that give them the opportunity to rise above the environment of ordinary people and make decisions that have major consequences ... This is due to the fact that they command the most important hierarchical institutions and organizations of modern society ... They occupy strategic command posts in the social system, in which the effective means are concentrated, providing the power, wealth and fame that they use.

However, due to the limited resources of power (material and spiritual wealth, values), representatives of the elite, as a rule, do not give up privileges on a voluntary basis. In order to win this war, the elites are forced to rally and group. The very high position of the political elite in society determines the need for its cohesion, group interest in maintaining its privileged status. “For the elitist paradigm,” emphasizes G.K. Ashin, is characterized by the assertion that society cannot function normally without the elite, that it has the right to a privileged position, moreover, it must vigilantly protect its privileges from “encroachment” by the masses.

A.V.Malko notes another factor, which determines the close connection of the elite with privileges. It consists in the fact that this group of persons personifies power, which (due to the fact that it is associated with the distribution of values ​​and resources) opens up wide opportunities for realizing the individual interests of the elite and its environment. Consequently, the struggle for privileges is largely a struggle for power, opportunities, resources, and influence.

After the February and October revolutions of 1917, there was a mass abolition of feudal unjust, in many respects already obsolete privileges, there was a change of political elites. In addition, legal advantages, exclusive rights for the bodies and officials of the Soviet state began to be designated in the legislation to a greater extent through the concept of "benefits". The unfolding struggle against class and estate privileges, incompatible with the ideals of equality and justice, with the principles of socialist construction, led to the fact that the term "privilege" began to be perceived as purely reflecting illegal advantages. In this connection, he was practically deleted from the law-making circulation.

However, contrary to the Marxist teaching in Soviet society, from the very beginning there was a stratification of the population into classes occupying different positions in the social structure and, accordingly, having different opportunities in the distribution of life's blessings. Inequality in this regard was not some kind of deviation from certain correct norms prescribed by the classics of Marxism, but a manifestation of objective laws. social being. By the end of the Brezhnev period, the class stratification of Soviet society reached a high level. A trend towards a decrease in the vertical dynamics of the population has become apparent; reduced the possibility of transition from one layer to layers of more high level. Representatives of the higher echelons of power rarely descended to the lower ones, as they had various privileges and opportunities to acquire the blessings of life due to their position in society.

Such privileges, received primarily by the nomenklatura, were not enshrined in the rule of law or were established in closed decisions. These advantages included the following: the distribution of housing, summer cottages, vouchers to sanatoriums and prestigious holiday homes, scarce goods, etc.

The new political elite, headed by B.N. Yeltsin, despite the fact that it came to power, including on the wave of the struggle against privileges, not only did not give up the existing privileges, but even increased them.

Privilege System, as S.V. Polenin, received, unfortunately, “widespread not only in the years of stagnation and deformation of socialism, but even more so in the current, democratic period. We are talking about benefits, with the help of which conditions of increased comfort of life are created for a selected circle of the “most responsible” persons, isolated on the basis of their belonging or proximity to those in power. In this case, benefits are not based on objective grounds and turn into ordinary privileges, the existence of which contradicts the idea of ​​forming a state of law and undermines both the principle of equal rights for citizens and the principle of social justice, under the slogan of which they are usually established.

A significant part of the ruling modern Russian elite, not possessing high managerial and moral qualities, having received enormous privileges as a result of the nomenklatura privatization of a significant part of state property, was unable to adequately govern the country and was largely to blame for the crisis that swept society in the 1990s. .

In a truly democratic country, illegal and excessive privileges must be abolished.It is necessary to incorporate by thematic principle the regulations on benefits for senior officials, including the President of the Russian Federation, and then publish for general information and control over their observance. In addition, the question of careful control over the existing and emerging political elite (through the institution of elections, referendums, deputies' reports to voters, the media, public opinion polls, etc.) is increasingly being raised so that it does not turn into a closed ruling privileged caste, but worked for the benefit of society, the majority of Russian citizens.

A truly democratic political system can be considered that implements the rule of the people, whose influence on politics is decisive, while the influence of the elite is limited, limited by law, a political system in which the elite is controlled by the people. Therefore, if we cannot ignore the thesis that the presence of an elite is a real or potential threat to democracy, then the way out, the condition for the preservation of democracy, is in the constant control of the people over the elite, limiting the privileges of the elite only to those that are functionally necessary for exercise of its powers, maximum publicity, the possibility of unlimited criticism of the elite, the separation of powers and the relative autonomy of political, economic, cultural and other elites, the presence of opposition, the struggle and competition of elites, the arbiter of which (and not only during elections) the people act, in other words, everything that in its totality constitutes the modern democratic process.

It is important for Russia to shape public opinion in such a way that the political elite itself begins to limit itself to a number of privileges that, from a moral point of view, look clearly disproportionate against the backdrop of the poor majority of the population.

For the modern Russian state, the problem of becoming a qualified, highly professional political elite, which the population could trust, is becoming more and more acute. Such an elite needs to be created by Russian society, making significant efforts in order to use democratic and legal norms and mechanisms, including through legal and justified privileges, to carry out a kind of “selection” of new politicians who have state thinking and are able to take personal responsibility for change in the country.

Basic concepts: reproduction of the elite, the highest political elite, elite consolidation, corporatism, elite mobility, nomenclature, political corporatism, political elite, political class, ruling elite, privileges, regional elite, elite reconversion, subelite, federal elite, political elite functions, elite fragmentation, elite characteristics, elite circulation, elite, elite traffic.

Questions for self-control:

1. What is the main difference between the political class?

2. What is the ratio of the political class and the ruling elite?

3. What are the different parts of the single ruling elite called?

4. Define the political elite.

5. What are the most important characteristics of the elite.

6. Describe the mobility of the elite.

7. List the functions of the political elite.

8. What is the difference between the "Yeltsin" and "Putin" stages of the formation of the political elite?

9. Who belongs to the political elite in Russia?

10. What changes have taken place in the composition of the new Russian political elite?

11. What are the main features of the ruling elite formed under V. Putin?

12. Name the main stages in the formation of the modern regional elite in Russia.

13. What reforms did Vladimir Putin initiate in order to strengthen the power vertical?

14. Describe the regional political elite of Russia?

15. What is Elite Reconversion?

16. Explain the relationship between fragmentation and consolidation of the elite.

17. What is the essence of political corporatism?

18. What are the privileges of the elite?

19. What are the necessary conditions for the democratic exercise of the privilege of elite groups?

Literature:

Ashin G.K.Change of elites // Social sciences and modernity. 1995. No. 1.

Ashin G.K.Elitology in the mirror of political philosophy and political sociology // Elitological research. 1998. No. 1.

Gaman-Golutvina O.V. Bureaucracy or oligarchy? // Where is Russia going?.. Power, society, personality. M., 2000.

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

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

Kretov B.I., Peregudov S.P. New Russian corporatism: democratic or bureaucratic? // Polis. 1997. No. 2. P.24.

Ashin G.K. Elitology in the mirror of political philosophy and political sociology // Elitological research. 1998. No. 1. P.11.

Polenina S.V. Law as a Means of Implementing the Tasks of Forming a Legal State // Theory of Law: New Ideas. M., 1993. Issue 3. P.16.

Ashin G.K. Elitology in the mirror of political philosophy and political sociology // Elitological research. 1998. No. 1. pp.13-14.

Elite (from French elite) means the best, selective, chosen. In everyday communication, this word can describe a variety of objects and phenomena (for example, an elite club, elite grain, etc.).

Starting from the XVI century. the word "elite" began to be used to refer to a certain selected category of people who occupy a privileged position in the hierarchical social structure of society. Moreover, in each sphere of life, as a rule, there is its own elite, for example: "literary elite", "scientific elite", "creative elite", etc.

The concept of elites arose in ancient times. For example, Plato singled out a special privileged group of people (aristocratic philosophers) who know how to govern the state, and opposed the fact that people from the bottom were allowed to govern. Subsequently, similar views were expressed by N. Machiavelli, F. Nietzsche, G. Carlyle, A. Schopenhauer and others.

The system of views and ideas in the form of elite theories was formed in sociology and political science at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. All theories of elites agree that in any society, in any sphere of life, there is a relatively small upper stratum of people who dominates the rest.

In Soviet social science, for many years the theory of political elites was regarded as a pseudo-scientific bourgeois doctrine that contradicted the principles of democracy (people's democracy). V.I. Lenin, in particular, said that in a socialist country every cook would be able to manage the state. Therefore, the Bolsheviks associated the political elite with the political aristocracy of the bourgeois type, which should not exist in a proletarian state. But reality refuted the illusions and dogmas of the theorists of a classless society, and over time a powerful and closed political elite was formed in the USSR.

Of all types of elites, the political elite occupies a special place, since it participates in the use of state power and has certain powers.

- a small, relatively privileged, fairly independent, superior group (or a combination of groups), which, to a greater or lesser extent, has certain psychological, social and political qualities necessary to control other people and is directly involved in the exercise of state power.

People who are part of the political elite, as a rule, are engaged in politics on a professional basis. Eligism as an integral system was formed in the first half of the 20th century. thanks to the work of V. Pareto, G. Mosca and R. Michels.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) - Italian economist and sociologist. He argued that all societies are divided into rulers and ruled. Managers must have special qualities (flexibility, cunning, the ability to convince others) in order to be able to subjugate others. They must also be willing to use violence.

V. Pareto divided managers into two main psychological type: "foxes" and "lions". "Foxes" are elites who prefer cunning, resourcefulness. These types of elites are more suited to rule in stable democratic regimes. "Lions" are elites who prefer tough methods of leadership. They are more suitable for making decisions in extreme conditions.

V. Pareto also substantiated the theory of elite change. For example, if “foxes” cannot effectively manage in the current situation, then “lions” come to replace them, and vice versa. In addition, he divided the elites into ruling (participating in management) and non-ruling (counter-elite) - people who have elite qualities, but do not yet have access to leadership functions.

Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) - Italian sociologist and political scientist. In his work The Ruling Class, he argued that all societies are divided into two classes: the ruling (elite) and the ruled. The ruling class monopolizes power, using legal and illegal methods to maintain it. The dominance of elites exists in any society - this is a law that is confirmed by the entire history of mankind.

G. Mosca believed that the most important criterion for the formation of the ruling class is its ability to manage other people. An elite that is solely focused on its own personal interests gradually loses its political and ideological influence and may be overthrown.

According to G. Moska, there are two main ways of updating (replenishing) the ruling elite: democratic and aristocratic. The first is open and promotes a constant influx of fresh, sufficiently trained leaders. The second way is aristocratic (closed). An attempt by the ruling class to form an elite only from its own ranks leads to its degeneration and stagnation in social development.

Robert Michels (1876-1936) - German sociologist, politician. In his most famous book, Political parties he argued that any social organization is subject to the domination of the oligarchy. The power of the elites depends on organization, and the very organization of society requires the leadership to be elitism and inevitably reproduces it. This is how the “iron law of the oligarchy” by R. Michels is formulated.

In the course of the formation of elites in an organization (society), a leading core and apparatus are allocated, which gradually get out of control of ordinary members. First, ordinary members, according to R. Michels, due to their inertia and incompetence, are not able to control the leaders. Secondly, the masses have a psychological need for leaders and leadership, a craving for strong power and admiration for the charismatic qualities of the elites.

R. Michels believed that democracy in the strict sense is impossible. IN best case it boils down to rivalry between two oligarchic groups.

Modern theories of elites

Currently, there are many schools and directions in the development of the theory of elites. The ideas of G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels and others belonging to the so-called Machiavellian school are united by what they recognized:

• the elitism of any society, its division into a ruling creative minority and a passive majority;
• special psychological qualities of the elite (natural gift and upbringing);
• group cohesion and elite self-consciousness, perception of oneself as a special layer;
• legitimacy of the elite, recognition by the masses of its right to leadership;
• structural constancy of the elite, its power relations. Although the personal composition of the elite is constantly changing, the relations of domination and submission remain fundamentally unchanged;
• the formation and change of elites occurs in the course of the struggle for power.

In addition to the Machiavellian school, there are many other theories of elites in modern political science and sociology. For example, value theory proceeds from the fact that the elite is the most valuable element of society and this dominant position is in the interests of the whole society, because it is the most productive part of society.

According to pluralistic concepts in society there are many elites in various spheres of life. Competition between the elites allows the masses to control the activities of the elites and prevent the formation of a single dominant group.

The political elite is divided into two main categories. Officials belong to the first government agencies and employees of the apparatuses of parties and movements. They are appointed to their positions by the heads of the organizations. Their role in the political process is reduced mainly to the preparation of political decisions and the legal execution of already adopted decisions.

The second category includes public politicians, for whom politics is not only a profession, but also a vocation. They are not appointed to positions, but win their place in the political structure in open political struggle.

In addition, the political elite is divided into the ruling and opposition (counter-elite), higher, middle and administrative.

In general, the elite is a necessary element in the organization and management of any society, any social community. Therefore, it is necessary to fight not against the elite, but for the qualities of the elite itself, so that it is formed by the most active, enterprising, competent and moral people. One of the tragedies of modern Russian society is that we have not yet formed an elite that meets the above requirements. Therefore, we can agree with Zh. their spirit, goals and methods of work such concepts as "clique", "clans", "castes". They characterize specific social formations, the cohesion of which is based on corporate consciousness, and not on public interests.

There are three main methods for identifying the political elite:

• positional analysis - definition of the elite according to the positions (positions) held in the formal political structure;
• reputation analysis - identifying those groups of politicians who, regardless of their formal positions, have a real impact on the political process;
• decision analysis - identifying those politicians who actually make the most important political decisions.

There are other methods for identifying the political elite, for example expert analysis, sociological survey etc.