Summary: Political elite and political leadership. Political elite and political leadership

Specific subjects of politics associated with the implementation of functions of managing society and guiding the political behavior of the population are political elites and political leaders. They occupy central positions in the political system, largely determining the nature, direction and forms of political development of society. Elites and leaders can contribute to social progress, or, conversely, slow down the development of society. And the population of any civilized state should be not indifferent to who and how exercises power.

At the current transitional stage in the development of Russian society, the task of creating a new democratic elite capable of stabilizing the situation and carrying out the necessary transformations is acquiring special urgency. V last years In Russian literature, interest in the problem of elites and leadership has grown significantly. Note that the published publications, as a rule, are controversial. Their authors, overcoming ideological stereotypes, are trying to approve new approaches to the study of the old scheme "the masses - the elite - the leader", which will reveal the mechanisms for the implementation of power, will make it possible to effectively manage the political process, will help protect the masses from the absolutization of power.

In the lecture, it is advisable to consider the following questions:

1. Political elite: essence, concepts. The problem of the formation of the modern political elite in Russia.

2. The concept and content of political leadership, its nature.

3. Typology and styles of leadership.

1. To clarify the essence of the problem, let us dwell on the concept of "elite". The term comes from the Latin eligere and the French elite - the best, selected, selected. Since the 15th century it has been used to designate goods the highest quality, and then for the allocation of the highest nobility in the social structure of society. The term was introduced into scientific circulation by the Italian sociologist V. Pareto (late 19th - early 20th centuries), and in modern political science literature, the concept of "political elite" refers to a number of fairly well-established ones.

The elite of any society is heterogeneous. According to the functions performed in society and types of activity, political, economic, scientific, cultural and other elites are distinguished.

The political elite is small, relatively close-knit social group, which concentrates in its hands a significant amount of power, has special social, political and psychological qualities, is directly involved in decision-making that affects the course of development of society. That is, this is a group of professionals for whom politics is the main source of income. The political elite is a field of interaction between representatives of other elites.

Why are elites appearing in society? Their existence is due to a number of factors, the main of which are the natural and social differences between people, the unequal degree of their participation in political life... From a rational point of view, the need for a specific subject of politics, professionally engaged in managerial work, is quite obvious. These and other factors determine the elitism of society.

The problem of elites and their role in society is not new to Western political science. Even in the socio-political ideas of ancient thinkers (Confucius, Plato and others), an elite worldview was formulated.

The Italian classic of political thought N. Machiavelli for the first time drew attention to the problem of the elite as a ruling group that leads society. The real beginning of systematic research in this area is largely associated with the works of the Italian sociologists Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), the German sociologist Robert Michels (1876-1936). These questions were also touched upon by O. Comte, M. Weber and other representatives of Western sociology.

Italian scholars considered the problem of elites from the standpoint of dividing society into two parts: a powerful minority (Pareto called it the elite, and Mosca called it the political class) and the majority subordinate to this power. In "Fundamentals of Political Science" (1 volume - 1896, P - 1923). Mosca defines politics as the sphere of struggle between the ruled class and the ruled class. The first class is always smaller in number than the second; it performs political functions, monopolizes power and derives from it numerous benefits of a material and spiritual nature.

The merit of G. Moski is that he analyzed the problem of recruiting (forming) the political elite and its specific qualities. The most important criterion for the formation of a political class is the ability to govern. This class is always chosen taking into account certain qualities and abilities of individuals. Among them G.Moska includes wealth, moral and intellectual superiority. He also identifies two trends inherent in the political class: aristocratic and democratic. The first is manifested in the desire of this class to become hereditary, if not de jure, then de facto, which leads to its degeneration. The democratic tendency is expressed in the renewal of the ruling class at the expense of the most active and capable of managing people from the lower strata, which prevents the degeneration of the elite. G.Moska gives preference to that society, which is characterized by a balance between these two tendencies, ensuring continuity in leadership and stability in society.

The result of many years of work on the creation of the theory of elites was the work of G. Moski "History of Political Doctrines", where he makes the following conclusions. The practical function of political science is to develop the art of government. The exercise of the management function should be carried out by the political elite. Representation of the people, sovereignty, egalitarianism are myths that mask the activities of the political class and mislead the masses.

The theory of the political class has been confirmed in practice in totalitarian states, where the prototype of the class described by G. Mosca was formed in the person of the nomenklatura bureaucracy.

The largest representative of the theory of elites, V. Pareto, viewed society as an integral social system that strives for equilibrium, moreover, it is not static, but dynamic, and this dynamics is determined by the elite - the ruling minority. His theory of "circulation of elites" is devoted to the study of the forces affecting social equilibrium, according to which the historical process is represented in the form of an eternal circulation of the main types of elites. History turned out not to be a "history of class struggle" (according to Marx), but "a graveyard of aristocrats" (V. Pareto's expression).

V.Pareto divided the elite into two parts: one - directly or indirectly - takes part in the management of society ("the ruling elite"), and the other does not participate in the management ("the non-ruling elite").

The typology of elites proposed by V. Pareto also deserves attention. According to her, there are two types of elites, which successively replace each other: "lions" and "foxes" (N. Machiavelli's terminology). The former are characterized by rough, forceful methods of government and extreme conservatism. The "Lions" are masters of deception and political combinations. In the period of monopoly capitalism, dominated by the elite "foxes", which Pareto called "demagogic plutocracy". The social system functions normally when there is a proportional influx of people of the first and second orientations into the elite.

One of the variants of the theory of elites was presented by R. Michels in his work "Sociology of Political Parties in Democracy" (1911). Using the methodology of V. Pareto and G. Moski, he investigated the problem of "party elite - party masses". The rank-and-file party masses are incapable of management, so they nominate leaders. Over time, the apparatus inevitably breaks away from the rank-and-file members and turns into a "party elite." The same thing happens in trade unions, churches, mass public organizations. And gradually power is concentrated in the "higher structures of the bureaucracy." That is, the very "principle of organization" leads in democratic organizations to the emergence of irreversible oligarchic tendencies, a hierarchy of power.

Thus, V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels were the first to propose the concept of the political elite as a special social group with its own specific characteristics, mechanisms of emergence and functioning. They laid the foundation for broad empirical and theoretical research groups leading society, having founded the historically first Machiavellian school.

In modern Western sociology, there are many different approaches to defining the essence of the elite, of which we single out two main ones: structural-functional (status) and value (axiological).

Supporters of the first approach (M. Dupre, G. Lasswell, P. Sharap, M. Narta, S. Keller and others) refer to the elite as persons with high social status, prestige, occupying positions that elevate them above the environment. That is, elitism is interpreted by them as a consequence of occupying command positions in the social hierarchy.

The value theories of elites derive elitism from the special psychological and social qualities of people (H. Ortega y Gasset, G. Schroeder, T. Corbet and others). They reveal those value parameters that raise the elite above the masses. These theories try to adapt elitism to real political life. democracies.

The most widespread modern version of the axiological approach is the concept of democratic elitism (elite democracy). Prominent representatives of this trend P. Barakh, R. Dahl and others. Instead of interpreting democracy as democracy, they offer a more realistic understanding of democracy as a competition between potential leaders for confidence and votes. This concept assumes that the masses can influence politics to a certain extent by choosing between competing elites.

A special position among Western researchers is occupied by the left-wing American sociologist R. Mills. Recognizing the elitism of American society, its division into the elite and the masses, he denounces the system of state-monopoly capitalism and the limitations of Western democracy. His ideal is anti-elite. Examining the complex structure of the US ruling elite, Mills singles out from it the political elite acting as the bearer of power functions. According to the scientist, access to the elite of people from the people is closed, since there is a deep difference between the elite and the masses.

The modernization of the theories of elites was undertaken in the concepts of meritocracy by the English sociologist M. Young and the American sociologist D. Bell (one of the authors of the theory of industrial society). M. Young in the dystopia "The Rise of Meritocracy: 1870-2033" (1958) satirically depicts the rise to power and the collapse of a new oligarchy, consisting of the most gifted and energetic individuals recruited from all strata of society. From his point of view, democracy and social justice are incompatible with elite governance.

D. Bell, in contrast to M. Young, uses the terms "meritocracy" in a positive sense. His concept is directed against the idea of ​​social equality and is intended to justify the privileges of the new meritocratic elite. D. Bell believes that knowledge and competence is the pivotal principle of the information society, it is scientists and highly qualified specialists ("knowledge elite") who make the greatest contribution to the development of society and therefore political power should belong to the "new intellectual elite".

There are also the following elite theories in Western sociology:

Biological, according to which the elite includes people who occupy the highest places in society due to their biological and genetic origin;

Psychological theory, which is based solely on the psychological qualities of members of an elite group;

Organizational theory of elites, referring to the elite of the leading workers, in particular, the bureaucratically organized bureaucratic apparatus;

Distributive theory, according to which the elite are people who receive material and non-material values ​​to the maximum extent and other theories.

In Western political science, there are different approaches to defining the typology of the political elite. Depending on the criteria underlying the typology, elites are distinguished: ruling and opposition, united and conflicting, political, economic, military, and so on. V.Pareto also distinguished between "speculators" (taking into account the situation in dynamics) and "rentier" (analyzing the situation in statics). O. Comte considered the change of elites in historical sequence and, depending on the change in the type of society, singled out "priests", "magicians" and "scientists". For M. Weber, elites corresponded to the types of domination he distinguished; they could be traditional, rational and charismatic. The style distinguishes between totalitarian, liberal, dominant and democratic elites.

As already noted, from the point of view of the structure of power, the political elite is internally differentiated and splits into a group directly possessing state power and a counter-elite (pressure group). Some political scientists include in the elite and the near-elite environment - a group of people who, without occupying leading positions, influences the elite itself (advisers, consultants, heads of commissions, and so on). Attempts are being made to include the leaders of the bureaucratic apparatus or economic circles in the political elite. It seems that this separate groups who are not directly involved in the making of power decisions. The inclusion of these groups in the political elite obscures the question of the specifics of the group of political decision-makers. At the same time, the problem of delimitation and mutual influence of political, economic, military, ideological and other elites remains very urgent. One elite passes into another, intersects with the third, and so on.

The denial of the elitism of society leads to the formation and domination of ineffective elites that damage the entire people. For a democratic state, it is of paramount importance to solve the problem of forming the most effective political elite useful for society, its timely qualitative renewal, and preventing the tendency of oligarchization.

The modern political elite is a specific social group, inclusion in which is due to a number of factors, among which the most significant are personal achievements (performance). This criterion is of decisive importance, since it largely helps to prevent the degeneration of the elite. In order to demonstrate effectiveness and achieve entry into the elite, it is necessary to have high social positions: a degree of material independence, an appropriate level and type of education, connections, acquaintances in the ruling circles, and so on. You need to be able to create an opinion about yourself from others.

The elite selection (recruiting) systems have a great influence on the qualitative composition and performance of the elite. There are two main systems: guild and entrepreneurial. They are rare in their pure form. The first prevails in countries with non-democratic regimes, the second - in democracies. The guild system is characterized by: closeness, selection of applicants from the lower strata of the elite itself, a slow way up, the presence of numerous institutional filters, a small circle of the electorate. The entrepreneurial system is distinguished by: openness, a small number of institutional filters, a wide range of electorate, high competitiveness of selection, priority of the personal qualities of applicants.

Both systems have their pros and cons. The more democratic is the entrepreneurial system, which nevertheless has such a disadvantage as the greater likelihood of risk in politics. The core values ​​of the guild system are consensus and continuity. But without complementing competitive mechanisms, this system leads to bureaucratization and degradation of the elite. An example of this is the countries of totalitarian socialism, where the nomenklatura system of recruiting the political elite dominated - a variant of the guild system. The long-term impact of this system led to the degeneration of the Soviet political elite.

The selection of a particular candidate, as a rule, is carried out on the basis of four types of motives formulated by M. Weber and which are still relevant today:

1. Traditional, that is, the desire to nominate people in their circle and thereby contribute to the homogeneity and cohesion of the leadership group.

2. Emotional motives - subjective likes and dislikes.

3. Evaluative-rational. The candidates for the political elite are presented with subjective (existing in the elite) ideas about the principles of human behavior and the views that are obligatory for him.

4. Finally, business considerations.

The formation of a "new" Russian elite is going on in a contradictory way. There is no clear description of it yet, but some conclusions can be drawn.

1) The formation of the "new" political elite in Russia falls on a transitional, crisis period in the development of society, which leaves its mark on its character.

2) Qualitative transformation of the "new" elite has not yet taken place. It includes elements of the former partocratic elite, from which the current one borrows traditional ideas, values, style of activity, and so on. The ruling stratum has a high proportion of representatives of the economic elite, all kinds of pragmatists and careerists who seek to use the situation for personal, selfish purposes and interests. At the same time, this is a pluralistic elite, very mobile, more educated, more efficient than the previous one. In terms of professionalism Russian elite is still weak, since there is no experience of working in market conditions, there is a lack of special, economic, legal knowledge.

3) The political power of the current elite is just taking shape, which determines its weakness and contradictoriness. One of the most important reasons for this is the lack of a broad socio-political support in the person of the middle class, which arises as a result of the development of commodity-money relations, high level economic relations. The base of the Soviet political elite was a large layer of the bureaucracy. Today the post-totalitarian bureaucracy is turning into an independent political force beyond the control of the ruling elite.

The weakness of the "new" elite is also due to the weakness of the spiritual, ideological foundations: there is no clear political doctrine of transformations, programs of its activities, a system of moral values. And the underestimation of the ideological function by the elite has a negative effect on the involvement in democratic transformations of the population that is losing faith and the meaning of their activities. It also does not contribute to the integration of society, rallying around the idea of ​​the revival of Russia.

Political leaders are trying to compensate for the "shortage" of these pillars, their own weakness by creating new power structures, shaking up personnel, strengthening executive and administrative power, and the like.

4) By its nature, it is a conflicting elite, which in many respects is characterized by authoritarianism, reactivity (feverish, unsystematic attempts to stop the process of decay and restore its significance), irrationality, and ambition. There is a decline in the authority of the current elite, which is perceived by the population not as an elite of merit, but as an elite of privileges. The new stage in social development, which began after October 1993, is characterized by continuing processes of redistribution and privatization of property in the absence of unity of the political elite. The key current trends in the process of consolidation of the new ruling class are: 1) the establishment by the bureaucratic elite of its own apparatus domination; 2) integration of political and economic elites; 3) the processes of regionalization of the elite.

V modern Russia there is a tendency to change the direction of the formation of a new political elite. Previously, such transformations were initiated by the "top" center. Today, regional elites are self-organizing and their influence is increasing.

A serious, aggravated problem remains the problem of the formation of a new Russian counter-elite, capable of becoming a real counterbalance to the existing "party of power."

2. One of the unique social phenomena is political leadership. Interest in the problem of leadership originated in ancient times. The cult of outstanding personalities and heroes was characteristic of the historians of antiquity - Herodotus, Plutarch, Titus Livy and others. Of the thinkers of the Renaissance, in this respect, the works of N. Machiavelli are especially interesting, who, unlike his predecessors, did not reduce the political process only to the action of heroes, trying to find optimal ratio between the ruler and the people.

A voluntaristic understanding of the role of personality in history is characteristic of the theories of T. Carlyle and R. Emerson. According to their point of view, history is made by the chosen leaders, and the masses are just the background for the leader, the crowd that blindly follows him.

F. Nietzsche had a noticeable influence on modern political science. He called the will to power as the fundamental principle of the world process, the natural striving of man. Morality is a "weapon of the weak" that must be despised, for it is a hindrance to the striving for power. A true hero, a superman does not limit himself to the norms of existing morality, does not give the crowd the opportunity to influence himself.

Modern concepts leadership was also formed under the influence of the views of the French psychologist G. Tarde. Main law social life he saw in the imitation of the followers of the leader, and all the achievements of civilization are the result of the activities of prominent figures. Without a leader, the crowd is a "headless torso"; social progress is indebted to the leaders-inventors who overcome the inertia of the crowd. The views of Tarde were also shared by the Russian populist N. Mikhailovsky. At the same time, he considered it necessary to pay attention to the psychology of not only the hero, but also his followers, since sometimes it is not about him, but about the peculiarities and moods of the masses who follow the leader.

The Austrian psychologist, creator of psychoanalysis Z. Freud paid great attention to the problem of leadership. He believed that suppressed libido (sexual desire) is sublimated primarily in the desire for power, for leadership. According to Freud, great people, leaders, are neurotics, maniacs, possessing a special "mysterious power" - magnetism. The masses need a leader like the father of the family.

Unlike the aforementioned theories, which consider leaders as a source and driving force of social development, the Marxist concept limits the possibilities of political leaders' activity by historical necessity and class interests. In it, the leader is deprived of creativity, acting only as an exponent of the will of the class.

V contemporary literature the term "leader" (English leader) means a person who is able to influence others in order to integrate joint activities aimed at meeting the interests of this community.

Political leadership is a personified form of interaction between public-political power and society, a special form of subject-object relations of domination and subordination regarding the conquest, retention and use of power, based on power structures and authority. In order for political leadership to manifest itself, four conditions are necessary: ​​a) the existence of a political program; b) active political activity; c) the ability to influence the political consciousness of the masses; d) material resources and funds for the implementation of software installations.

In modern political science, there are several approaches to the definition of political leadership. Let's note only the most common ones:

1. Definition of leadership as a constant priority influence on the part of a certain person on the whole society, organization or group.

2. Leadership is a managerial status, a social position associated with the adoption of power decisions, it is a leadership position. This definition follows from the structural-functional approach, which presupposes the consideration of society as a complex, hierarchically organized system social positions and roles.

3. Political leadership is a special kind of entrepreneurship carried out in the political market. This kind of interpretation of leadership is applicable mainly in democratic organizations.

Political leadership exists at three social levels, where it has different functions.

1. Leadership at the level of a small group united by political interests. It is a mechanism for the integration of group activities, in which the leader directs and organizes the actions of the group and is responsible for the decisions he makes. Leadership at this level is common to all societies.

2. Leadership at the level of political movements of specific social strata (groups) linked by a common political interests, the same social status. In this case, it is not the personal qualities of the leader that come to the fore, but the ability to adequately express the interests of the part of the population supporting him. This level also characterizes power in any society.

3. The third level is political leadership as a way of organizing power in the conditions of the existence of a civil society, separation of powers. This level is characterized by an orientation toward social partnership, in the course of which the mutual satisfaction of interests (of the leader and the "followers") is realized.

In political leadership, individual leadership is distinguished - the leader and his followers, and collective - the elite and the masses. By type, formal leadership associated with established rules the appointment of a leader and functional relationships and informal, arising from the personal relationships of the group members.

The nature of political leadership is quite complex and in science there is still no unambiguous answer to questions about the foundations, mechanisms of functioning of this social phenomenon.

Undoubtedly, there is an objective need in society for political leadership, but it is realized in different ways. Leadership incentives can be very diverse. These are also noble impulses - through leadership to realize the urgent needs and interests of the people. People also strive for leadership for the sake of satisfying personal ambitions, self-serving interests, obtaining material benefits, privileges. From the point of view of a number of psychologists, for individuals, political leadership is a means of compensating for an inferiority complex, a path to self-affirmation (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Hussein).

In modern political science, there are several theories that explain the nature of political leadership.

Leader trait theory. Its supporters (K. Bird, E. Bogardus, J. Jennings, R. Stogdill and others) consider the possession of specific leadership qualities and abilities a prerequisite for recognizing a person as a leader. Among them are usually called a sharp mind, ebullient energy, strong will, outstanding organizational skills, competence. The famous American sociologist E. Bogardus in the monograph "Leaders and Leadership" lists dozens of qualities that a leader should have: a sense of humor, tact, ability to foresee, external attractiveness and others. He is trying to prove that a leader is a person with an innate biopsychological complex that provides him with power.

Extensive research carried out to test the theory of traits has largely refuted this concept, since it turned out that many of the qualities of a leader almost completely coincide with the full set of psychological and social characteristics of personality in general. The main flaw of this theory is that it views leadership as an isolated phenomenon that can be explained from itself, without reference to historical and social conditions. The fact that performing the functions of a leader contributes to the development of the qualities necessary for this is also not taken into account.

The factor-analytical concept - the second wave of the theory of traits, which takes into account the shortcomings of the first - distinguishes two groups of leader's properties: purely individual qualities of a leader and characteristic features of behavior associated with the achievement of certain political goals. As a result of the interaction of these properties, a leader's behavior style (leadership style) is developed, which constitutes his "second nature".

A variant of trait theory is the charismatic concept of leadership, according to which leadership is bestowed upon certain prominent individuals as a kind of grace (charisma).

Situational leadership theory (W. Dill, T. Hilton, D. Riesman, T. Parsons and others). Leadership is, first of all, a product, a function of the situation in the group. It is the specific circumstances that determine the selection of a political leader and determine his behavior. This theory does not deny individual personality traits, but does not absolutize them as a theory of traits. She gives priority in explaining the nature of political leadership to the requirements of circumstances. As can be seen from Fromm's research, Riesman's most common type of modern bourgeois leader is an individual with a "market orientation". According to this theory, the leader is a kind of weather vane. The limitation of this theory lies in the fact that the activity of the leader is belittled, the individual is viewed as an "empty box filled with society" (Piaget's expression). The fatalism inherent in Situationism condemns the personality to passivity.

Theories of the determining role of followers (W. Hageman, F. Stanford and others). Its proponents, dissatisfied with trait theory and situational concepts, attempted to uncover the "secret of leadership" through its followers. It is the follower who perceives the leader, the situation, and ultimately accepts or rejects the leadership. In modern political science, the circle of a leader's followers is understood quite broadly: political activists, clearly defined adherents of the leader, his voters. The leader and his followers make up unified system and this allows us to understand and predict the political behavior of the leader.

In modern empirical sociology, primarily American, in Lately the most widespread is the so-called synthetic or relational theory, the supporters of which are trying to unite the above theories, to overcome their one-sided nature. According to this concept, in the study of leadership, it is necessary to take into account a whole range of issues, namely the traits of the leader, the situation in which he acts, the nature of the followers, the problems facing the group.

The traced evolution of various interpretations of political leadership shows that sociologists do not have a single holistic theory of this phenomenon. Some take for the primary will, the consciousness of the leader, others - group psychology. The common thing is that they regard the leader as a key figure in the political process, and the problem of political leadership is usually translated into the plane of empirical research in small groups, identifying the psychological and social aspects of leadership. That is, the question of the possibility of creating a universal concept of leadership that can provide a scientific explanation for this extremely complex and multifaceted phenomenon in its manifestation remains open.

3. In modern political science, the typology of political leadership is widely represented. One of the first, the most common, belongs to the German sociologist M. Weber, who, based on the authority of those in power, identified three main types of leadership:

1. Traditional, based on belief in the sacredness of traditions and customs (typical for an industrial society).

2. Bureaucratic or rational-legal. It is carried out on the basis of adherence to procedures and rules.

3. Charismatic leadership, based on the ability to drag the masses along without the help of instruments of power. Weber saw the peculiarity of charismatic rule in the fact that the leader possesses maximum legitimacy. This type of leadership for him is an alternative to the total bureaucratization of society.

The first type of leadership is based on habit, the second - reason, the third - faith and emotion. Weber noted that in historical reality it is impossible to meet these "ideal types" of leadership in their pure form. Charismatic leadership arises in critical situations and, when the social system stabilizes, transforms into other types. In relatively calm periods of development, bureaucratic leadership is preferable for society.

Among the types noted, the most interesting is the charismatic type. Exists different kinds and the degree of charisma. One of them is comparative-historical, when the image of some historical figure is reanimated. At the same time, such acts and moral and psychological qualities that he did not possess are attributed to him.

The role of the spiritual rallying force of the nation at difficult turning points in history is often played by current political charisma, when the basis of choice for the masses is not the party, but a public figure. A leader who receives charisma is often presented as a victim of truth. Thus, the mass consciousness creates the image of the most honest person, which we have encountered, for example, with the growth of the authority of such figures as V. Havel, B. Yeltsin and others.

Political charisma, sometimes turning into a starting one, helps new leaders to lead the country out of the crisis. But history loses little time for effective impact, then it degenerates if the promised programs are not fulfilled. Therefore, the starting political charisma must be supported by legal charisma based on the law of political struggle. Otherwise, the rating of a leader who loses charisma drops, and social tension grows in society. And it may happen that political charisma, with the help of propaganda support, will be reborn into a leader's one. A charismatic leader turns into a ruler with a "strong hand".

M. Weber believed that any revolutionary leader should have charisma. Undoubtedly, such leaders as V. Lenin, I. Stalin, Kim Il Sung, F. Castro and others possessed it and are still enjoying it. The current Russian leader Boris Yeltsin is also a charismatic leader. This is largely due to the fact that political relations in Russia, in the absence of a multi-party system, they lock themselves in on political leaders rallying supporters around themselves. The political position of Russian citizens is determined primarily through their relationship to the president: "for" or "against."

Foreign sociologists and political scientists pay much attention to the study of the styles of political leadership. The most common is the typology that reduces all styles to authoritarian and democratic.

Authoritarian leadership is usually characterized as follows: all directions are given in a business-like, concise manner. The unfriendly tone, praise and censure are completely subjective. An authoritarian leader demands monopoly power, single-handedly defines and formulates the group's goals and how to achieve them, resorting to the threat of punishment and a sense of fear. The psychological climate in a group dominated by such a leader is characterized by a lack of benevolence, mutual respect between the leader and subordinates, who turn into passive executors of the leader's will. The socio-spatial position of the leader is outside the group.

Democratic style leadership is preferable to the previous one, because it does not humiliate subordinates, awakens in them a sense of their own dignity, activity. A friendly tone, praise and censure are made in the form of friendly advice, suggestions. Such leaders respect the members of the group, are objective in communicating with them, initiate the participation of everyone in the activities of the group, delegate responsibility, distribute it among all members and create an atmosphere of cooperation. The socio-spatial position of the leader is within the group.

In modern political life, the emphasis is on democratic leadership, but in reality there are transitional forms and shades of both styles.

Some researchers distinguish another - "non-interfering" or "conniving" leadership style. Supporters of this style often refer to the words of the American writer Thoreau that best leader- the one who is invisible. The leader avoids conflicts with people, entrusts his functions to deputies and other people, does not interfere in the course of the group's work. According to sociologists, this style leads to a low quality of work performed. This style has gained a certain distribution in our country, especially during the years of stagnation. Some political analysts are inclined to believe that the features of this leadership style were observed in M. Gorbachev, who preferred not to know about the actions of the OMON in Lithuania, the bloody events in Baku and Tbilisi.

Margaret J. Hermann (USA) names four collective images of a leader: a) "standard bearers" or great people. He is distinguished by the presence of an ideal for the sake of which he seeks to change the political system; b) the leaders are "traveling salesmen". Their characteristic- the ability to convince, to involve followers in the implementation of the plan; c) "puppets" - servants, spokesmen for the interests of their adherents. Such leaders are usually directed, they are agents of the group, reflecting its goals and acting on its behalf; d) leaders - "firemen", distinguished by their quick reaction to the urgent needs of the moment. The leading role of such a leader is manifested in responses to what is happening in reality. The situation creates demand - the leader gives the answer. In real political practice, most leaders use all four types of leadership in various combinations.

The variety of types of leadership, the difficulties of their classification are largely explained by the wide range of tasks they solve. From a meaningful point of view, the functions of a leader include the following:

1. Integration of society, uniting citizens around the national idea, common values.

2. Finding and making optimal political decisions.

3. Social protection of the masses from lawlessness, maintaining order through control, encouragement and punishment.

4. Communication between the authorities and the masses, which prevents the alienation of citizens from the political leadership.

5. Protection of folk traditions, initiation of renewal, instilling optimism into the masses, faith in social ideals and values.

In Russian history, personality has always played important role... In practice, our society has never lived in a democracy. Power was personified by one person: the prince, the king, the leader. In Russian political culture, there is such a feature as disrespect for the memory of political leaders who have passed away or who have suffered defeat, and subservience to the new leader.

The transitional period in the development of society gives us a large number of leaders, most often of the populist type. Many of them are flesh and blood of the old authoritarian system. They basically reduce political activity to self-affirmation and the struggle for power, while appealing to the masses, manipulating their politicized consciousness. There is a lack of trust in political leaders in society. The difficult task of forming a new type of political leader can be solved only as (and in parallel) the implementation of fundamental democratic transformations in all spheres of the life of Russian society, the improvement of the mechanism for the selection of leaders, an increase in the level of political culture and the activity of the masses.

Let's summarize some of the results.

1. The political elite, as one of the main subjects of the political process, is the result of the natural-historical development of society, the product of political relations. From a functional point of view, it is characteristic of any society. Carrying out complex tasks of political leadership and administration, elites have a decisive influence on the functioning of the political system, the course and direction of development of society. For a democratic state, it seems very urgent to solve the problem of forming the most effective, useful to society the political elite, preventing its alienation from the masses and becoming a privileged caste.

2. Leadership is a historically formed social need of people to organize their activities. Political leadership now common to all human societies, is the most ancient form of organization of people's life, a mechanism for integrating the interests of various segments of the population. This problem is of particular interest to Russian scientists and politicians. For more than seventy years, authoritarian leadership has prevailed in our country. The system for selecting leaders was imperfect. The difficulties of the transitional period that Russia is going through determine the need for both a theoretical understanding of such a social phenomenon as political leadership, and a practical solution to the problem of forming a new type of leader, in whose style of activity competence, communication, organizational skills and high moral qualities would be organically combined.

LITERATURE

Ashin G. Political leadership: optimal style // Social sciences and modernity. 1993. - No. 2.

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

Voslensky M. Nomenclature. - M., 1991.

Kryshtanovskaya O. Transformation of the old nomenclature into a new Russian elite // Social sciences and modernity. 1995. - No. 1.

Ledonne J.P. The ruling class of Russia: a characteristic model // International journal of social sciences. 1993. - No. 3.

Mills R. The Ruling Elite. - M., 1959.

Moska G. The ruling class // Sotsis. - 1994. - No. 10.

Myasnikov O. Change of ruling elites: "consolidation" or "eternal struggle"? // Polis. - 1993. - No. 1.

Tucker R. Political culture and leadership in Soviet Russia. From Lenin to Gorbachev // USA: Economics, Politics, Ideology. - 1990. - No. 1-6.

Shpakova R. Types of leadership in M. Weber's sociology // Sotsis. - 1988. - No. 5.

For more details see: M.S. Voslensky. Nomenclature. The dominant class of the Soviet Union. - M., 1991.

See: R. Mills, The Ruling Elite. - M., 1959.

See: O. Myasnikov. Change of ruling elites: "consolidation" or "eternal struggle" // Polis. -1993. - No. 1.

See: Ozhiganov O. Constitutional Experiments in Russia // Megapolis Express. - 1993. - No. 23. -P.21.

Ashin G. Political leadership: optimal style // Social sciences and modernity. 1993. - No. 2. - P.120.

Introduction

1. The concept of the elite

2. Functions of the political elite

4. Theories of elites

7. Concept political leader

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

For a long time political scientists of various directions opposed the concept of "political elite" for various reasons. Western political scientists defending the concept of political pluralism argue that this concept is permissible for use only in relation to low-organized societies, but it is completely unacceptable for analyzing the political system of a post-industrial society. Nevertheless, the concept of the elite is now firmly established in political literature.

The elite are the people who occupy leadership positions in government organizations and have a sufficiently large influence to make important decisions and solve global problems.

The political elite is an integral part of the state system. All political power is concentrated in her hands. The elite is directly related to all areas of government activity. The existence of the state is unthinkable without it. Let's imagine for a moment that the elite does not exist, then the whole mass should have competence in political issues and at the same time should still be engaged in another matter, which is not real. Therefore, several people stand out from the crowd who speak on behalf of the people and they, in turn, tend to turn them into the political elite, that is, the elite.

All politicians pursue specific interests in their activities. The diversity of group and individual aspirations of participants in political life is coordinated by a political leader - a person who is able to determine common goals, ways to achieve them, organize the process of distributing roles and functions within society. Such a person, endowed with managerial status and a position of power, is called a political leader.

The very concept of leadership contains a secret, how thousands of people obey one person (chair), therefore the concept of leadership is inextricably linked with the concept of power. After all, political power is the ability and will of a certain class, group, individual to carry out his political line in accordance with his interests.

Let us consider the following problems: what role do social-class strata, groups, individuals as subjects and objects of politics play in the political life of society; what is meant by political leadership, what role do the personal aspects of the subjects of political activity play; the concept and theories of political elites, their functions, characteristics of political leaders and political elite of modern Russian society.

1. The concept of the elite

There are three types of aristocracy: 1) aristocracy of birth and rank; 2) money aristocracy and 3) aristocracy of mind and talent. The latter, in fact, is the most noble and eminent and is recognized as such, if only we give her time.

In the XX century, the concept of the elite firmly entered the political science lexicon, despite the objections of many representatives of social and political thought, in particular, it does not "fit" with the ideology of Marxism. The concept of elites is based on inequality, while inequality is due to human nature. The etymology of the term elite means the best, most worthy representatives, which does not always correspond to reality. But although these objections are justified, the rejection of a term that reflects a certain reality, a certain social relation does not make sense.

The elite of society is a group of people standing at the top level of the hierarchy, capable of creating patterns of needs and behavior. The elite is made up of the holders of the highest positions in a group, organization or institution, selection into it is carried out according to the principle of "knowledge productivity". Therefore, the elite possesses, thanks to their positions and role, the power and influence that allows them to form the social structure of society.

“The elite is a group structured in a certain way, which, due to its special social status, the corresponding political conditions, public perception, certain political traditions, a unique place in the system of power institutions, the ideological picture of the world adopted in a given society, has the potential of decisive influence (cultural, economic, ideological or political) on most other groups and institutions in this society "(Sh. Sultanov)

Thus, you can define the "political elite". This is a certain group, a stratum of society, which concentrates state power in its hands and occupies positions of power, governing society. These are mainly professional politicians of high rank, endowed with power functions and powers. They are also senior civil servants, professionally prepared to participate in the development and implementation of political programs, in the development of a strategy for social development.

2. Functions of the political elite

In the first place is strategic function. Its content is to develop a strategy and tactics for the development of society, to determine a political program of action.

Communicative the function provides for the effective representation, expression and reflection in political programs of the interests and needs of various social groups and strata of the population and their implementation in practical actions.

Organizational function. The political elite at all times faced and will face the need to organize the masses. Among potential political elites, the most effective will be those that are more able to secure support for their programs by the masses. This function provides for the implementation in practice of the developed course, the implementation of political decisions.

Integrative function is to strengthen the stability of society, the stability of its political and economic systems, in the prevention of conflicts, irreconcilable antagonisms, sharp contradictions, deformation of political structures. Important substantive elements of this function are: rallying various segments of the population, harmonizing their social interests, achieving consensus, cooperation and close political interaction of all forces in society.

3. The mechanism of formation of the political elite

There are two trends in the formation and reproduction of the political elite in the world.

The first is typical for states with non-democratic regimes and is characterized by closedness, a narrow social base of formation by a circle of persons carrying out selection. Common for countries with low social mobility. The closed type of recruiting is historically the first, therefore it prevails in conservative societies.

The second is typical for democratic states and, accordingly, it determines a much wider range of social base and requires a high political culture for its functioning, which is a consequence of the development of the political system. However, for countries with democratic principles of statehood, the range of openness can be very different.

The ruling elite: concept and structure. In addition to the political elite, the ruling elite also includes the economic, cultural, ideological, scientific, informational and military elites.

The economic elite is a social stratum that includes representatives of big business, large owners.

The ideological, informational elite are the leading representatives of the humanities, education, the media, who perform in society the function of forming worldview positions, value orientations, ideas and beliefs of people.

The military elite. The degree of its influence on public life is determined by the level of the country's militarization and the nature of the political regime.

The scientific elite includes the most gifted part of the intellectual elite. Its role is determined by the degree of impact on such processes as the development of science and technology, scientific and technological progress.

4. Theories of elites

The founders of the modern theory of elites can be called the Italian sociologists G. Mosca and V. Pareto. V. Pareto singled out the elite: economic, political and spiritual. He was the pioneer of the functionalist theory of the elite. According to the Italian Institute of Politics, any society is characterized by elitism. This is based on the fact natural differences people: physical, psychological, mental, moral. This elite is characterized by special political and organizational qualities. The masses recognize the elite's right to rule. Elites replace each other during the struggle for power, since no one voluntarily surrenders power. The fact of the existence of the elite is practically not refuted by anyone except Marxists. Although various schools of sociologists and political scientists have opposite opinions on this matter.

The elite does not rule, but exercises leadership of the masses with their voluntary consent, through free elections.

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

Radical elitism, society is ruled exclusively by one ruling elite. The rule of the people is technically impracticable: direct democracy is impossible, at least in countries with a large population, and representative democracy inevitably leads to the people's loss of part of their sovereignty, alienated in favor of elected representatives who, by virtue of certain laws, turn into an elite.

The solution to the question of whether a society can function without a political elite is possible both at the level of political philosophy and political sociology. Within the framework of political philosophy, which is predominantly a normative theory, one can speak of a society without an elite as an ideal of a society in which a high political culture of the population makes it possible to maximize the involvement of members of society in managing all public affairs (i.e. raise the level of the masses to the level of the elite. conditions of the information society, its computerization is possible efficient system direct and, most importantly, feedback between the governing bodies and all members of society, allowing directly and immediately to identify and take into account the views of all members of society on all issues of social management. The information society creates conditions for the implementation of the trend of expanding the participation of the masses in the management of the political life of society, for the formation of a competent informed citizen.

5. The role of social class strata in the political life of society

Interests are the basis for the life of any society. It follows from this that the social nature of power (what forces it personifies, who is behind it, what social classes and strata make up a given society) is the most important factor in the political system. It should be noted that in modern society there is a process of erasing the differences between classes and an increasing role is played by intraclass, so-called interlayer relations. Today, social differentiation in society is due to the transition from differences in attitudes towards property to differences in the nature of labor (stratification of society).

The stratification of a society is its division into unequal social groups and strata. It is objective in nature and is associated with differences between people in relation to property, access to power, income level, education, etc. All these differences form social inequality of strata and groups in society, and the social structure of society appears as a system of regulated social inequality, where some receive more benefits than others.

There is always social inequality in society (i.e. rich and poor), because a socially homogeneous, classless society does not exist at all. The social structure of a society can be "pyramidal" or "diamond-shaped". "Pyramidal" is characteristic of underdeveloped countries, where, as a rule, there is a sharp polarization of society: the majority are poor, the minority is rich. Such a society is not stable, either politically or economically, and is fraught with social explosions. A "diamond-shaped" social structure is characteristic of developed countries, where there is a super-rich and poor minority, but the majority of society is the so-called middle class (in the United States, this stratum makes up 3/4 of the total population). In this structure, social movements from one stratum to another are not hindered either. Such a society is more stable.

6. Individuals as subjects and objects of politics

The social inequality of society has a significant impact on the possibilities of representing the interests of various strata and classes in power, in politics. Some social groups, strata turn out to be a passive object of politics, while others are not only an object, but also a subject of it. This fully applies to the individual as an object and subject of politics. The main elements of the personality structure can be considered substructures: biological, psychological and social (Fig. 1).

Consider the social substructure of the individual.

Social experience is the past years, it is the quantitative and qualitative experience of the life of an individual. It depends on him how a person will act in a given situation.

Orientation is a set of value orientations of an individual that underlie his social behavior.

There are three main aspects of personality:

1. Personality as individual characteristics person.

2. Personality as a representative of a group (class, mass, ethnic, etc.), as a performer of a certain political role (voter, party member, etc.), which, as it were, dissolves it in the masses and does not give an opportunity to express itself autonomously as a specific subject of politics.

3. An individual as an independent active participant in political life, possessing the unique trait of being a citizen of a given state and being free in his choice. It is in this respect that a person interacts with power, fulfills certain political responsibilities and acts as an object and subject of politics.

The following factors influence the formation of personality: internal and external. External - the political system of the state; attitude to class, stratum, nation; culture, etc. Internal - genetic data, upbringing, etc.

7. The concept of a political leader

The participation of an individual in politics can be called "political socialization", as a result of which the consciousness of the individual, his political behavior is formed, and the formation of a citizen's personality takes place. Unlike political enlightenment or upbringing, political socialization includes not only the impact on the personality of one or another ideology, but also one's own activity.

According to the level of political activity, individuals differ:

1. Citizens with minimal political activity who are only the object of politics.

2. Citizens - members of a public or political organization, i.e. political activists.

3. Public and political figures - opponents or supporters of the official authorities.

4. Professional politicians, for whom politics is the main activity.

5. Political leaders, i.e. organizational ideological formal or informal leaders.

Activities of various parties, public organizations personified in specific personalities - leaders. Leadership as a social phenomenon is inherent in human nature. As society developed, it moved from personal leadership to more complex forms: to leadership institutions, group leadership. For a long time, the prevailing point of view in Russia was that if there were no antagonistic contradictions in the country, then the problems of political leadership were automatically removed. But under the conditions of Soviet society, the struggle for power, for the implementation of political programs turned into a cult of the individual, lawlessness and repression.

Under the conditions of democratization, the role of scientific management of society, the role of political leadership and political elites is increasing. Leadership is increasingly acting as one of the mechanisms for regulating relations between social groups, institutions, and society as a whole. Its essence is the relationship of dominance and subordination, influence and following.

To understand political leadership, it is necessary to find out its nature. Leadership is a multifaceted concept; in it one can single out such main points as the character and political socialization of the leader himself, the properties of his supporters, his relationship with the masses, a specific situation, etc. However, leadership has many aspects and it is impossible to reduce everything only to personal factors.

Leadership in general is a type of interaction between people when a person (or a group) directs other people to organize their joint activities, to implement goals. The definition of leadership has much in common with the definition of power, power relations, since power relations exist not only in political life, but also in other social spheres. The leader can be defined as the subject of power in all types of social development of society. He directs the followers; not only leads them, but wants to lead them; the followers also desire this. This reflects the essence of the social role of the leader, which is specifically manifested in the role, in the function of the leader.

A political leader is also an object of politics. He must have such qualities, the main criterion of which is the effectiveness of his activities to meet the interests of the political movement that has nominated him. He experiences the influence, pressure of various stakeholders and must accept their proposals and requirements, be ready to compromise.

8. Characteristics of a political leader

Political leaders, expressing the interests of certain classes, strata, parties, movements, have a huge impact on the development of political processes in the country. The role of a leader is especially great in critical periods of the development of society, when quick decision-making, the highest responsibility for their implementation, the ability to assess the situation, etc. are required. A leader must have analytical skills, the ability to analyze the situation, confidence, decisiveness, consistency in their actions. The interests of society, social justice should be higher than personal interests for him. In addition, a leader must have the ability to captivate people, inspire confidence in them, have a high culture, be honest, decent, correct, and respect the people who follow him. A political leader, implementing a political program, must be strong-willed, persistent and purposeful.

To become a leader, an individual must justify the trust of the object and thereby gain credibility. The subject-leader is followed not because one has to go, but because one wants to go. There are many contenders for leadership, but history chooses the one who meets its needs.

Distinguish between individual leadership and collective (elite and masses). Individual political leadership on a national scale is:

1. Distant leadership (the leader and his followers do not have direct contacts with the people, but indirectly exercise them through organizations and officials).

2. Multi-role leadership (a leader focuses not only on his environment, but also on officials of the executive hierarchy, on the broad masses. His task is to maintain a balance of various political forces and branches of government).

3. Corporate leadership (the leader voices what has been developed by his "pyramid"), fig. 2.

The political leader has the following functions:

l) integrative (combining the interests of various strata of society into a single program);

2) coordination (between the branches of government and public opinion);

3) pragmatic (the goals and objectives of society are implemented in specific program actions).

By type of activity, leadership is distinguished between formal and informal. Formal is associated with managerial status, with a leadership position. Informal - with influence, outstanding personality traits, which makes her a leader. In stable functional groups that are part of social systems, a leader is appointed, and then he becomes a leader. But for certain reasons, the appointed leader does not fulfill the entire set of functions, and then these functions are transferred to another person, not appointed, but elected by the group, to the informal leader. Leadership is a social role played by a certain subject. This means that a leader as a specific person in a given role appears only when there is a need for such a role. It should also be remembered that the role can remain, but the leaders can change. Therefore, when analyzing a specific leadership, it is necessary to analyze not only the leader-personality, but also the content of the leadership role in a specific situation.

Authority is essential to an effective leadership role. In the very general view authority is a social assessment of a subject of activity by a group of people or in the whole society in which he acts. The essence of the assessment is to determine the subject's compliance with the requirements of the activity and the conditions of its origin, i.e. the leader's compliance with the expectations of the people, which should be manifested in his political activities. The true authority of a political leader is created primarily by the protection of social interests, value orientations of the group, society as a whole.

In a traditional situation, leadership is based on belief in the sacredness of traditions, in the legitimacy of the existing order, in its "rationality".

The social essence of a crisis situation consists primarily in the fact that functional social structures cease to function, people appear who seek to destabilize them and replace them with new ones. Both "dual power" and "anarchy" can arise equally. At this moment, the usual guidelines are lost (for example, the party was ruling for many years, and suddenly this role ceases to be). Inevitably, there is confusion in the actions and behavior of people, some chaos, which, in turn, gives rise to increased suggestibility, the search for answers to many of the questions that have arisen. And, as a rule, a change in the situation leads to a change in the content, role and forms of leadership, leads to the departure of old leaders. And it happens that at this moment there are no social obstacles for any person to become a leader, often not meeting the functional essence of a leader, but possessing some of his qualities.

In conditions of an especially sharp development of the situation, a charismatic leader may appear. Charismatic leadership is based on a belief in a leader's exceptional, supernatural abilities. Charisma means God's grace. The abilities of the leader are considered by the masses as emanating from the deity, they possess, as it were, magical powers. This type of leadership is characterized by the fanatical devotion of the bulk of its followers. Any doubt about the qualities of a leader is considered sacrilege. Of course, a charismatic leader is sometimes able not only by actions, but also by the force of moral influence, by his very existence to overcome the disunity of society. But one cannot fail to see the negative aspects, when a charismatic leader is surrounded by an aura of the irreplaceable (it was this situation that gave birth to the charismatic leader, the personality cult of Stalin).

At the end of the twentieth century. it became obvious that the West and the East have recently faced the process of "charismatization" of the political leader. Crisis situations in many countries give rise to hope in the minds of the masses for a miracle that can solve all problems at once. Knowledge and justified orientations are beginning to be replaced by faith. The crisis of socialism at the end of the 80s. brought to life a whole galaxy of leaders of this type.

With the stabilization of the social system, when some order is established, new legal regulations, the leader of a crisis situation is no longer able to perform new role and is forced to leave. Bureaucratic leadership usually or often replaces it. It arises when a leader becomes not due to some special personality traits, but with the help of legal bureaucratic structures.

A leader requires a good knowledge of people, the ability to select intelligent assistants who could complement the leader's personality in terms of their qualities, who would be able to argue and debate, arguably defend their point of view.

The most important problem political leadership is such a political phenomenon as "image", i.e. the image of a political leader, the image of a country's leader, deputy, etc.

The higher in position the leader, the leader, the less he communicates directly with people who are increasingly dealing with the image of this leader. In the course of political practice, an "image" is formed in the mass consciousness, an image of a politician that can correspond to a real person. The result of comparing a real face and an image determines the attitude towards politician wide sections of the population (support, trust, etc.).

Conclusion

The political elite is also weak in the spiritual sphere, not only by the absence of a clear ideological orientation, but also by moral values, by the absence of a clear long-term program of reorganization and democratization of society. The desire to transfer Western values ​​to Russian soil leads to the opposite result: freedom is understood as irresponsibility and permissiveness, competition as the right of the strong, individualism as egoism, etc. The desire to form an ideological position, a single national idea rests on the slogan of de-ideologization, which was very popular in the struggle against the CPSU, against the old system. Thus, the new Russian elite has not yet developed an integral system of ideas that would be able to unite all segments of the population in the struggle for a legal democratic society.

So, the most important factor development of society are political relations, where the social interests of classes, social groups, individuals are manifested more capaciously. The basis of this relationship is power. By regulating the relationship of various social strata of society, politics thereby preserves the integrity of society. The progressive processes of society's development depend on which social groups and their leaders participate in the political process, how political forces are distributed in it, what the political elite is. Power and politics are realized exclusively through the interests of various social groups, headed by leaders. A leader can be defined as a subject of power in all types of social interaction; he, as it were, personifies certain group orientations and directions, personifying political processes. In the political life of our country, the demand for people capable of professionally fulfilling the role and functions of political leaders, without whom the development of society is impossible, has increased enormously.

Bibliography

1. Political science: personality, power, democracy. Textbook from the series of liberal arts education. 1996

2. Roshchin S.K. "Psychology and Journalism", M., 1995

Political elite- This is a small social group that concentrates in their hands a significant amount of political power, directly involved in the adoption and implementation of decisions related to state power or influence on it.

One of the first to draw attention to this topic G. Mosca... Studying both history and contemporary society, he came to the conclusion that power in society is exercised by a special organized minority.

Almost at the same time, another Italian scientist was working on the theory of elites - V. Pareto, who noted that political leadership should be carried out by a small social stratum, whose representatives have outstanding mental and intellectual qualities. V. Pareto highlighted the following features of the political elite:

1. The ruling stratum is divided into elite and counter-elite. The elite directly controls the political life of society. The counter-elite consists of people who have the necessary potential to enter the ruling class, but due to the peculiarities of the social structure and other obstacles, they are not able to do so.

2. The main engine of the political development of society is the circulation (circulation) of two types of elites: "foxes" and "lions". The first type consists of politicians who are flexible in their actions, inclined to compromise and peaceful resolution of contradictions. The second type is decisive and force-based politicians. “Foxes” are involved in stable and peaceful periods of social development, however, in moments of major social upheavals, power, as a rule, passes to “lions”.

A significant contribution to the study of social mechanisms that lead society to the allocation of a layer of people exercising political leadership was made by R. Michels, who formulated the "iron law of the oligarchy." Analyzing social relations, he came to the conclusion about the impossibility of direct democracy, direct rule of the masses. The consequence of this is the delegation from the masses of individual members to special bodies for the expression and protection of their interests. With the emergence of representative bodies of power and political parties, the elite is separated from the masses (oligarchization) and is transformed into a closed caste. The emerging elite gradually begins to strive to satisfy, first of all, their narrow interests and preserve the acquired privileges. At the same time, the main idea is too incompetent in matters of management, politically passive, and therefore unable to significantly influence the situation.

The recruitment of the political elite is of great importance in terms of its social representativeness, effectiveness of actions, public authority, etc.

The elite recruiting system is a selection mechanism for the ruling elite, for leading positions in a party or state.

Leadership Phenomenon interested in human society since ancient times, which is explained by the huge role that the leader, leader, hero played in the development of public life.

In modern political science, there are several approaches to defining political leadership:

leadership - constant, priority influence on the part of a certain person on the whole society, organization or group;

leadership is a managerial status, a social position associated with the adoption of power decisions;

political leadership is a special kind of entrepreneurship carried out in the political market, in which political entrepreneurs, in a competitive struggle, exchange their programs for solving social problems and methods of their implementation for leadership positions;

a political leader is a symbol of community and a model of the political behavior of a group, capable of realizing its interests with the help of power.

Political leadership has a number of critical functions. These include:

Determination and formulation of the interests of social groups, goals of social and political activity, identification of ways and methods of realizing interests and achieving goals (program function);

The process of developing and making political decisions (management function);

Mobilizing the masses to achieve political goals, distribution social roles in society (mobilization functions);

Integration of society, uniting the masses, ensuring national unity (integrative function);

Communication between the authorities and the masses, convincing the public of the correctness of the decisions taken by the authorities, legitimization of the authorities.

Political leader is able to change the course of political events and the direction of political processes. Political leadership differs from other forms of leadership only in that it takes place in the political sphere of society. Political activity takes place within the framework of society, i.e. affects a huge number of people. As a result, a political leader is practically unable to influence people directly. His influence is carried out with the help of the media, propaganda, proxies. By virtue of the power that a leader possesses and the need to influence a large number of people, he always has assistants: analysts, experts, image makers, speechwriters (speech writers) who help him build that image which is offered to the masses. The leader is interested in being supported by as many people as possible, and therefore he seeks to win over different social groups. Therefore, the activities of a political leader always have a multi-role character.

The difficulty in explaining the phenomenon of political leadership gives rise to several options for identifying the types of leaders. Many researchers rely on the typology M. Weber. He identified three types of leadership :

Traditional - based on the time-honored tradition of submission; subordinates habitually consider the existing type of leader (monarch, leader) to be correct;

Charismatic leadership is based on the personal abilities the leader possesses. These qualities can be both real and attributed;

Legal leadership - involves the election of a leader in a democratic way, when he gains the majority of votes and thus the legitimacy of his power is rationally justified. Weber himself believed that only a charismatic leader is the engine of the main political processes, he is a politician by vocation.

Another typology was given by M. Hermann, he distinguishes between four types of leader:

Leader type	Its characteristic	Leader examples
Leader-bearer	Has his own view of reality, the image of the desired future and knowledge of the means to achieve it. Determines the nature of what is happening, its pace and methods of transformation	Founder of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet State IN AND. Lenin, Head of the National Liberation Movement of India M.K. Gandhi, fighter for civil rights of blacks in the United States Martin L. King
Servant leader	It most accurately expresses the interests of its adherents. Acts on their behalf. Guided by what their constituents expect, believe in, and need	General Secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. Brezhnev, K.U. Chernenko
Merchant Leader	Has the ability to convince. Seeks recognition by understanding the needs of voters, a desire to satisfy them	US presidents G. Truman, R. Reagan
Firefighter Leader	Has a quick reaction to the urgent requirements of the time, formulated by its supporters. Able to act effectively in extreme conditions, make quick decisions	Most leaders in modern societies

Citizens' political participation is not always active. In society, it is sometimes observed absenteeism(lat. absens - absent) is a form of political apathy, manifested in voters' evasion from participation in referendums and elections to government bodies.

In all societies, there existed, exists and, most likely, will continue to exist, the division of people into two classes - the ruling class and the ruled class. The first, always smaller in number, performs all political functions, monopolizes power, uses all the advantages that it gives, and rules the second class in a form that, depending on the prevailing political situation, is more or less legal, democratic and provides the ruling class with all the necessary for its normal existence conditions.

The concept of "elite" of Latin origin (from the Latin eligere or French elite - the best, selective, selected). Beginning in the 17th century, it was introduced into speech circulation and began to be used in the social environment in relation to the "chosen people", primarily the highest nobility. This category was introduced into scientific circulation at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. scientific school of political elitism, the main representatives of which were V. Pareto, G. Mosca and R. Michels.

V. Pareto defined the elite as a group consisting of people who are the most productive (most capable) and have the highest performance in a particular field of activity. Analyzing the activities of such groups in various spheres of human life, he developed a theory of the circulation of elites. Any elite, according to V. Pareto, over time deteriorates its composition, loses mobility, dynamism, initial qualities and gradually, being closed, degenerates. Social equilibrium requires that individuals of non-elite origin with “elite qualities” should constantly “pour in” into the ruling elite, and individuals with non-elite qualities should be eliminated from it. But this does not happen in real practice, since the ruling elites guard their privileges and try to pass them on by inheritance. At the same time, the process of forming a counter-elite is under way, ready to oust the ruling elite and become the dominant one. Over time, when the process of deterioration in the composition of the ruling elite reaches its climax, and at the same time the quantitative growth of the counter-elite reaches its maximum size, the counter-elite, with the support of the masses (or even without it), overthrows the power of the former elite and establishes its dominance. History, V. Pareto emphasized, is perceived by us as a change in social cycles, as a process of elite circulation. The "circulation of elites" is carried out using violent methods - political revolutions - which, in his opinion, are generally beneficial to society.

G. Mosca, in turn, believed that politics is a sphere of struggle between two opposite classes: the ruling minority (elite) and the dominant majority (masses, people). He defined the elite as “the class that rules,” or as the class of people who perform all political functions and monopolize power, while the other class consists of those who are governed and controlled. At the same time, G. Mosca emphasized that more or less legal, more or less arbitrary, including violent methods are used in politics, which provide the political elite with material opportunities for existence, as well as vital means for the functioning of the political organism.

A significant contribution to the theory of elites was made by the German sociologist and political scientist R. Michels. Exploring social relations, he came to the conclusion about the impossibility of direct democracy, direct rule of the masses. To express interests, make and implement decisions, special organizations (parties, trade unions, etc.) are required. The functioning of the organizations proceeds according to special laws. The development of any institution is associated, first of all, with the formation of a hierarchy (structural organization) and a special management layer. Over time, this stratum monopolizes power, breaks away from the masses, turning into an oligarchy that only cares about preserving its own social status. R. Michels called this tendency "the iron law of oligarchy", thereby emphasizing the inevitability of the formation of a management layer with its own specific interests in any organization, in any society.

Based on numerous theoretical approaches to the elite, one can give the following generalizing definition: the ruling elite is the privileged upper social strata possessing the attributes of power and influence, wealth and prestige, who have concentrated in their hands the most important command positions in large corporations, political, state institutions and in the army.

A distinctive feature of the ruling elite as the leading part of the political elite is that it is they who determine the political course, make the most important political and administrative decisions and control political resources. In everyday consciousness, the ruling elite is almost always identified with the political elite as such, which is not entirely true. The ruling elite includes that part of the political elite that supports it without being directly in power.

The study of elites assumes their typology according to certain parameters (attributes):

• 1. On a functional basis - the elites are divided into political, cultural, informational and economic. The political elite is made up of political groups and political leaders who carry out power decisions. The cultural and information elite is made up of outstanding figures in science, culture, art, prominent journalists who influence the formation of public opinion, the highest hierarchs of the church. The main function of this elite group is the formation of public opinion for the elite, the ideological substantiation of the fact of the domination of this elite, as well as the decisions it makes. The economic elite are the richest members of society: large owners, bankers, heads of financial and industrial groups, heads of leading corporations, owners of large capital.
• 2. According to their place and role in the political system, the elites are divided into the ruling and oppositional (counter-elite). The ruling elite includes those groups and individuals who actually make the most important managerial decisions or directly influence their adoption. The counter-elite includes those who seek to occupy the positions of the ruling elite.
• 3. According to the intensity of circulation and methods of recruiting, the elites are divided into open and closed. An open elite is characterized by a fairly dynamic circulation, it is characterized by openness, expressed in formally equal opportunities for members of non-elite groups to enter it. The selection is carried out on the basis of intense competition, in which personal qualities are of great importance. The open elite is replenished with new leaders who are carriers of new ideas and values. Therefore, she demonstrates the ability to innovate and reform. The closed elite is characterized by slow circulation, which is expressed in unequal opportunities for representatives of non-elite groups to enter it. Ultimately, it strives for self-reproduction, which in turn dooms it to degeneration and degradation. The positive features of a closed elite are: a high degree of continuity in policy making, a balanced solution, and a low likelihood of internal conflicts. The disadvantages include: sluggishness, weak ability to respond to ongoing social changes, a tendency to caste.
• 4. By structure, i.e. by the nature of intra-elite relations, the elites are subdivided into elites with a high degree of integration (united, integrated) and with a low degree of integration (disunited, disintegrated). The integrated elites are fairly cohesive. There are stable ties between intra-elite groups. The degree of intergroup competition is rather low; conflicts within the elite are not irreconcilable. Elites with a low degree of integration are characterized by such features as a sharp struggle between various groups for mastering strategic positions, for the spheres of control and distribution of resources.
• 5. According to the degree of representation - the elites are subdivided into elites with a high and a low degree of representation. The differences between them are, respectively, in the degree of expression of the interests of various segments of society.

All topics that make up the course of political science are related to the problems of political power. The study of political leadership concretizes and deepens our knowledge of political power. Both in essence and in form, political leadership is a manifestation of power and power relations. Power functions and powers are exercised by specific persons - political leaders. The mechanism for the implementation of political power cannot operate without the main character- a political leader who is central to power relations. Political leadership largely reveals the essence of the real mechanism for implementing politics in society.

The concept of "leader" comes from the English "leader", which means leading, managing other people. A leader is a person capable of influencing others in order to integrate joint activities aimed at satisfying the interests of a given community. Leaders lead, lead various human communities - from small groups of people to communities of the state level.

In modern political science, there are several points of view on the nature of political leadership.

• 1. The theory of features. The essence of this theory is that a person becomes a leader solely due to outstanding qualities. One of the representatives of this theory E. Bogardus believes that "superior" intellectual talent provides a person with prominence, which sooner or later leads to leadership. " Thus, he tries to substantiate the innate traits and properties of a person to be a leader. The number of such people (with innate traits of a leader) is limited, but they determine social progress. Naturally, a political leader must have outstanding qualities. But a person who possesses such qualities and is superior many people do not always become a leader. This requires favorable social conditions. Well, for example, among the traits necessary for a political leader are such as a sharp mind, strong will, ebullient energy, organizational skills, the ability to please people, competence, willingness to take responsibility etc. How many days with such characteristics are not in demand, do not find application!
• 2. Situationism (situational concept) (R. Stogdill, T. Hilton, A. Goldner). This concept is based on the idea that leadership is seen as a function of a particular situation. Leader behavior that is appropriate in one situation becomes unacceptable in another. For example, the behavior of the foreman of plasterers is somewhat different from that of the head of a research laboratory. From the point of view of situationism, the traits of a leader are relational, i.e. are relative. One person can show the traits of a leader at a rally, another at a Sunday, and a third at a wedding. As a result, the leader, acting depending on the situation, turns into a kind of weather vane, a clever opportunist who only cares about his career. Weak side this theory is that the leader is passed off as the passive side.
• 3. The concept of the defining role of followers. (F. Senford, D. Risman). The leader is just a tool for the group. The group itself determines and chooses a leader. The secret of the leader is not in himself, but in his followers, in their psychology, in their requests. The role of political activists is especially important in this process. They assess his personal qualities and capabilities, organize campaigns in support of him, act as a link between him and the masses, i.e. make a leader.

However, this concept is also one-sided, because it cannot explain the independence and activity of the leader, his innovations. It often happens that some of the leaders' actions subsequently diverge from the interests and expectations of the supporters who brought them to power (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler).

4. Relational theory. Supporters of this theory are trying to synthesize the above approaches, to overcome their limitations. Without denying the importance of the situational approach, recognizing the importance for a leader of having a number of necessary traits, the supporters of the relational approach add to these factors the traits and needs of followers and require that the interaction of all factors be taken into account. This attitude is based on the personal traits of individuals, the relationship of sympathy and antipathy, i.e. it does not take into account the historically transient nature of leadership, the change in its content at different stages of its development. In the needs of society, in the features of the economic and socio-political organization of society, in the structure of collectives, one should look for an explanation of the nature of leadership.

As you can see, "leadership" is a capacious and multivariate concept. Accordingly, there are various classifications of types of leaders. One of the first typologies of leadership was created by M. Weber, it included:

• - Traditional leadership: based on belief in the sacredness of tradition (for example, the legitimate inheritance of the monarch's throne by a son). According to historically established traditions and customs, a person from birth has the "right to leadership", due to the origin or belonging to the elite. This type of leadership is common in preindustrial societies.
• - Rational-legal or bureaucratic type of leadership - based on belief in the legality of the existing order and its "rationality". This type is characteristic of the "industrial society". It arises when one becomes a leader not because of some special personality traits, but with the help of "legal" bureaucratic procedures (elections or appointments). Rational-legal leadership is impersonal, impersonal, acting only as an instrument of the law.
• - Charismatic leadership. Charisma is "divine inspiration", the term was borrowed by M. Weber from early Christian literature. A charismatic leader is a person endowed with supernatural, at least exceptional abilities that are inaccessible to an ordinary person. On the basis of this singularity, he is recognized as a leader. Naturally, these qualities do not correspond to reality in many respects, they are recognized only by followers. This type of leadership is characterized by fanatical worship of followers, devotion to the leader. Any doubt about the ability of a leader is sacrilege.

If the traditional and rational-legal types of leadership have objective grounds in the form of law or tradition, then charismatic leadership is of a purely personal, subjective nature.

In addition to these types of leadership, there are others.

• - Populist type of leadership. This type of leadership is characterized by flirting with the masses and even groveling in front of them, an orientation towards momentary interests, the needs of the masses. A populist usually appeals to the simplicity and clarity of the proposed measures (Zhirinovsky). The likelihood of such leaders emerging is especially high during periods of transition. They use the gullibility of voters and make their way to parliament on the basis of election programs full of the most tempting promises, which, as a rule, are never fulfilled.
• - The leader-adventurer is a master of political intrigue, manipulating the interests of the electorate. His activities are intuitive. In the first place are personal interests, divorced from the needs and demands of people.
• - A captive leader - often sincerely supports the interests of voters and the people, but is incapable of political activity due to the lack of necessary qualities and political talent.

The functions of political leadership include:

• - integrative function, i.e. the integration of strata of the population in a specific political program, ideally providing for the satisfaction of the aspirations of each group of the population. An attitude of this type in the activity of a politician is a prerequisite for leadership;
• - coordination - i.e. correlation of the activities of government institutions (parliament, court, administration) with the system of axiological regulations adopted in society, with public opinion;
• - pragmatic - the transformation of goals and objectives facing society and formed in ideology into specific action programs.

These functions also determine the specific activities of any political leader, whose task is to:

• - uniting citizens around a common goal and organizing its achievement;
• - finding and making optimal political decisions;
• - development of new ideas, maintaining optimism and social activity in society;
• - preventing the alienation of citizens from the political leadership through the media, meetings with voters, trips around the country, interviews, etc .;
• - legitimization of the system (primarily in totalitarian societies - the USSR, Germany, North Korea, Cuba).

The social significance of a political leader is very high. Accordingly, high demands are made on the part of society. The essence of these requirements is as follows:

• - serious political education, competence, erudition;
• - will, firmness of character, purposefulness;
• - the ability to compromise, dialogue, concessions;
• - tolerance (tolerance, the desire to proceed from the balance of interests of various strata and groups, parties and social movements, the ability to establish work with them to achieve socially significant goals);
• - organizational skills, thanks to which disparate forces merge into a single stream;
• - a sense of tact, diplomacy;
• - the ability to be creative, innovative, to take reasonable risks;
• - oratorical skills, the ability to clearly and reasonably formulate their thoughts, to capture the attention of the audience;
• - political intuition, a sense of time.

Thus, we see that political leadership is one of the unique phenomena of the political life of society, associated with the exercise of power functions. It serves as an institution that includes the majority of the population in solving social problems on the scale of society as a whole.

Very often we come across the concepts of "political leader" and "political elite". These concepts mean groups of people who have political weight in society.

Political elite concept

The concept of "elite" is interpreted from French as "the best with privileges." In a broad sense, the concept of "political elite" means a small social group, whose members stand out from society by their prestige and privileged position, which makes it possible to directly influence the socio-political processes in society.

Often, the political elite is directly involved in the adoption of important government decisions and in the leadership of the state. State and political power is concentrated in the hands of the ruling political elite.

The ancestor of the concept of "political elite" is the Italian sociologist and legal scholar Mosca, who argued that power is always concentrated in the hands of a certain group of people, regardless of the state system or regime.

Features of the formation of the political elite in modern Russia

During the tsarist rule, the political elite of the Russian Empire was represented by noble families, who, due to their proximity to the monarch, had the opportunity to participate in administrative processes.

After revolutionary events, power and privileges were concentrated in the hands of the party elite. The persons participating in the government during the Soviet era were called the party nomenclature.

The process of forming a political elite in modern Russia has not yet been completed. With the beginning of the new century, lawyers, economists, and business representatives began to rank among the political elite.

Political leadership

A political leader is a person who heads a political organization. The concept of "political leader" and "political leader" should not be confused. It is not uncommon for the head of state to be not a political leader.

The main feature of political leadership is the ability of a person or a group to correctly represent a certain political ideology, on the basis of their authority and respect, to acquire an increasing number of fans of a political idea.

Leadership types

According to the scale of influence, the following types of leadership are distinguished:

National leaders;

Class group leaders;

Leaders of movements, parties and public organizations.

Leaders and Followers

The main feature of a leader is his ability to influence broad masses of people, using certain methods characteristic of him. The people to whom this influence is directed are called followers.