Elite (from the French elite) means the best, chosen, chosen. In everyday communication, this word can describe a wide variety of objects and phenomena (for example, an elite club, elite grain, etc.).
Since the 16th century. the word “elite” began to be used to designate a certain selected category of people occupying a privileged position in the hierarchical social structure of society. Moreover, each sphere of life, as a rule, has its own elite, for example: “literary elite”, “scientific elite”, “creative elite”, etc.
The concept of elites arose in ancient times. For example, Plato identified a special privileged group of people (aristocratic philosophers) who knew how to govern the state, and opposed allowing people from the lower classes to govern. Subsequently, similar views were expressed by N. Machiavelli, F. Nietzsche, G. Carlyle, A. Schopenhauer and others.
A system of views and ideas in the form of elite theories was formed in sociology and political science at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. All elite theories agree that in any society, in any sphere of life, there is a relatively small upper layer of people who dominate the rest.
In Soviet social science, for many years, the theory of political elites was viewed as a pseudoscientific bourgeois doctrine that contradicted the principles of democracy (people's democracy). V.I. Lenin, in particular, said that in a socialist country every cook would be able to rule the state. Therefore, the Bolsheviks associated the political elite with a political aristocracy of the bourgeois type, which should not exist in a proletarian state. But reality refuted the illusions and dogmas of the theorists of a classless society, and over time, a powerful and closed political elite was formed in the USSR.
Of all types of elites, the political elite ranks special place, since it participates in the use of state power, has certain powers.
- a small, relatively privileged, fairly independent, superior group (or set of groups), more or less possessing certain psychological, social and political qualities necessary to manage other people and directly involved in the exercise of state power.
People included in the political elite, as a rule, are involved in politics on a professional basis. Eligism as an integral system was formed in the first half of the 20th century. thanks to the works of V. Pareto, G. Moschi and R. Michels.
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) - Italian economist and sociologist. He argued that all societies are divided into those who govern and those who are governed. Managers must have special qualities (flexibility, cunning, the ability to persuade others) in order to be able to subjugate others. They must also have a willingness to use violence.
V. Pareto divided managers into two main ones psychological type: “foxes” and “lions”. “Foxes” are elites who prefer cunning and resourcefulness. These types of elites are more suitable for ruling in stable democratic regimes of power. Leos are elites who prefer tough leadership methods. They are more suitable for making decisions in extreme conditions.
V. Pareto also substantiated the theory of elite change. For example, if “foxes” cannot manage effectively in the current situation, then “lions” come to replace them, and vice versa. In addition, he divided the elite into ruling (participating in management) and non-ruling (counter-elite) - people who have elite qualities, but do not yet have access to leadership functions.
Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) - Italian sociologist and political scientist. In his work The Ruling Class, he argued that all societies are divided into two classes: the ruling (elite) and the governed. The ruling class monopolizes power, using legal and illegal methods to maintain it. The dominance of elites exists in any society - this is a law that is confirmed by the entire history of mankind.
G. Mosca believed that the most important criterion for the formation of a ruling class is its ability to control other people. An elite that is focused solely on its own self-interest gradually loses its political and ideological influence and may be overthrown.
According to G. Mosca, there are two main ways to update (replenish) the ruling elite: democratic and aristocratic. The first is open and promotes constant influx fresh, sufficiently trained leaders. The second method is aristocratic (closed). Attempt ruling class forming an elite only from one’s own ranks leads to degeneration and stagnation in social development.
Robert Michels (1876-1936) - German sociologist and politician. In his most famous book, Political Parties, he argued that any social organization is subject to the rule of oligarchy. The power of elites depends on organization, and the organization of society itself requires elitism of leadership and inevitably reproduces it. This is how R. Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy” was formulated.
During the formation of elites in an organization (society), a leadership core and apparatus are separated, which gradually go beyond the control of ordinary members. Firstly, ordinary members, according to R. Michels, due to their inertia and incompetence, are not able to control the leaders. Secondly, the masses have a psychological need for leaders and leadership, a craving for strong power and admiration for the charismatic qualities of the elites.
R. Michels believed that democracy in the strict sense is impossible. IN best case scenario it comes down to the rivalry of two oligarchic groups.
Modern theories of elites
Currently, there are many schools and directions in the development of the theory of elites. The ideas of G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels and others, members of the so-called Machiavellian school, are united by the fact that they recognized:
- the elitism of any society, its division into a ruling creative minority and a passive majority;
- special psychological qualities elites (natural gift and upbringing);
- group cohesion and elite self-awareness, perception of oneself as a special layer;
- the legitimacy of the elite, recognition by the masses of its right to leadership;
- structural constancy of the elite, its power relations. Although the personal composition of the elite is constantly changing, the relationship of dominance and subordination remains fundamentally unchanged;
- the formation and change of elites occurs during the struggle for power.
In addition to the Machiavellian school, there are many other elite theories in modern political science and sociology. For example, value theory proceeds from the fact that the elite is the most valuable element of society and its dominant position is in the interests of the entire society, because it is the most productive part of society.
According to pluralistic concepts there are many elites in society various fields life activity. Competition between elites allows the masses to control the activities of the elites and prevent the formation of a single dominant group.
The political elite is divided into two main categories. The first group includes officials government agencies and workers of party and movement apparatuses. They are appointed to their positions by the heads of organizations. Their role in the political process is reduced mainly to the preparation of political decisions and the legal formalization of decisions already taken.
The second category includes public politicians for whom politics is not only a profession, but also a vocation. They are not appointed to positions, but win their place in the political structure through open political struggle.
In addition, the political elite is divided into the ruling and opposition (counter-elite), into the highest, middle and administrative.
In general, the elite is a necessary element in the organization and management of any society, any social community. Therefore, we must fight not against the elite, but for the qualities of the elite itself, so that it is formed by the most active, proactive, competent people with moral qualities. One of the tragedies of modern Russian society is that we have not yet formed an elite that meets the requirements listed above. Therefore, we can agree with the opinion of Zh. T. Toshchenko, who believes that it is impossible to call every group with political power an elite and “that we are ruled - both in politics and in economics - not by elites, but by groups of people to whom they are most applicable and appropriate their spirit, goals and methods of work such concepts as “clique”, “clans”, “castes”. They characterize specific social formations, the cohesion of which is based on corporate consciousness, and not on public interests.”
There are three main methods for identifying the political elite:
- positional analysis - definition of the elite by positions (positions) held in the formal political structure;
- reputation analysis - identifying those groups of politicians who, regardless of their formal positions, have a real influence on the political process;
- decision analysis - identifying those politicians who actually make the most important political decisions.
There are other methods for identifying the political elite, for example expert analysis, sociological survey etc.
Elitology, as a science, is relatively young. She was born in Europe at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. Its founders were famous political scientists of that time: Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto. They were the first to define the political elite and characterize its properties and qualities.
Thus, G. Mosca compiled a list of qualities that representatives of the elite must possess. “Members of a ruling minority invariably possess qualities, real or apparent, that are deeply revered by the society in which they live.” He identifies 4 main characteristics of the elite: material superiority, intellectual superiority, moral superiority and organizational abilities of the individual. Due to the inherent inequality of people, the division into the elite and the masses is inevitable.
V. Pareto defined the elite as people “who occupy a high position according to the degree of their influence and political and social power.” The promotion of people to the elite is facilitated by the presence of certain qualities, for example, the ability to foresee and express the hidden attractions of the masses.
In Russia, the problem of the political elite is dealt with by a limited number of scientists. They are, undoubtedly, Oksana Viktorovna Gaman-Golutvina (“Political Elites of Russia: Milestones of Historical Evolution”) and Olga Viktorovna Kryshtanovskaya (“Anatomy of the Russian Elite”). And, despite the fact that their contribution to the study of this science is quite large, the elites still remain a completely unstudied structure to this day.
Elite - This is the ruling group of society, which is the upper stratum of the political class. The elite stands at the top of the state pyramid, controlling the main, strategic resources of power, making decisions at the public level. The elite not only rules society, but also controls the political class, and also creates such forms of state organization in which its positions are exclusive. The political class forms the elite and at the same time is a source of its replenishment.
The modern political elite of Russia began to form in the late 90s, and it has undergone fundamental changes, moving from the “service-nomenklatura” principle of formation to a pluralistic one. The existing modern ruling class is called "Putin's" elite. The essence of this term is as follows. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, having come to power in 2000 (for the first time), immediately began to eliminate the reasons that destroyed the political vertical of power under Boris Yeltsin. Under him, an orderly system of executive power was created, and it also began to return to the center.
The composition of the modern political elite of the Russian Federation is quite diverse, but it is possible to identify several dominant groups in the hands of whose representatives power is now concentrated. Among these associations one can distinguish bureaucratic groups, security forces, former criminal groups and others.
If we take into account the ongoing A.M. Starostin’s survey, it turns out that power in the regions at the moment actually belongs to the following groups of people (the survey was called “Who, in your opinion, really owns power in the regions today?”): the president or governor - 74.3%, oligarchs - 30%, criminal structures – 20% and managers of large companies – 11.4%.
Here it is worth addressing the issue of the rating of the Russian elite. As a basis, we can take the results of a 2011 VTsIOM survey, from which it follows that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has the highest rating in the country (58%), which, in turn, means solid trust among citizens. Next, with a small gap, is Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (42%). The top ten proudly included leaders of political factions Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Gennady Zyuganov and Sergei Mironov.
It should be noted that the political elite of Russia has always been inextricably linked with issues of property. If we look back just a few decades, we will see that in the recent past, real power was concentrated in the hands of the most successful businessmen of the 90s. Access to power was significantly limited for people without sufficient funds. Among such political oligarchs one can single out Grigory Luchansky (who was one of the first to open a business in the West, a multimillionaire), Boris Berezovsky (professor of mathematics, billionaire, political emigrant), Mikhail Cherny (“king” of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, billionaire), Vladimir Gusinsky (one one of the first bankers in Russia, media tycoon) and others.
Little has changed since that time for ordinary, even well-educated citizens. Entrance to the political elite remains closed; there is no counter-elite in our country, and, most likely, this is a feature of our time, and not of the current state policy.
“A feature of the political elite is the real opportunity to make or influence the adoption of national decisions.” At the moment, the elite of the Russian Federation faces a difficult but feasible task. Higher political circles do not agree to put up with the until recently dominant position of the United States on the world stage. Feeling the approving support of the population, the Russian political elite has an arrogant attitude towards the threats and sanctions imposed by the United States. Using the laconic tactics of a calm enemy, Russia's top circles are gradually adopting their own measures of punishment of the United States with the aim of ending the existence of a unipolar world. Directions for movement in this vein were given back on February 10, 2007.
Thus, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian political elite thoroughly revised the socio-economic and political attitudes of their country. The political elite of the Russian Federation has undergone serious changes under the influence of modern geopolitical factors and globalization factors. In response to the requirements of the era, as well as due to the challenges facing Russia, the composition of the Russian elite underwent changes much more often than in other states. The vertical of power was more or less built in the early 2000s, when economic growth began in Russia and the political system strengthened.
Comments 6
I wonder if the Russian elite possesses all 4 main characteristics of the elite: material superiority, intellectual superiority, moral superiority and organizational abilities of the individual?
Good evening, Mr. Kadyrov!
Thanks for the question. If you are interested in my personal opinion, then I think not. It seems to me that there is not a single elite in the world that would possess all these properties, since this is a certain ideal that, unfortunately, does not exist in life.
One of the features of the Russian elite is the close connection between position and friendly relationships, as well as the material component of an applicant for entry into the elite. If we take into account these facts, it turns out that his intellectual abilities and moral component do not play a significant role.
Sincerely,
Valeria Vladimirovna
6.1. About the concepts of ruling and political elite
Politics, which is one of the spheres of society, is carried out by people who have power resources or political capital. These people are called political class, for whom politics becomes a profession. The political class is the ruling class, since it is engaged in governance and manages the resources of power. It is heterogeneous due to differences in the possession of power, the nature of activities, methods of recruitment, etc. Its main difference lies in institutionalization, which consists in the system of government positions occupied by its representatives. The formation of a political class is carried out in two ways: appointment to public office (such representatives of the political class are called bureaucracy) and through elections to certain government structures.
In addition to the political class, politics can be influenced by individuals and groups with either official powers or informal opportunities. T.I. Zaslavskaya calls such a set of individuals and groups ruling elite, to which she includes politicians holding senior government positions, the top echelon of the bureaucracy and the business elite. Since the most significant resource of the ruling elite is political capital, or power that gives the legitimate right to manage the property and finances of the state, there is a direct or latent connection between all groups of the ruling elite and state structures.
O. Kryshtanovskaya gives this definition elite: “this is the ruling group of society, which is the upper stratum of the political class. The elite stands at the top of the state pyramid, controlling the main, strategic resources of power, making decisions at the national level. The elite not only rules society, but also controls the political class, and also creates such forms of state organization in which its positions are exclusive. The political class forms the elite and at the same time is a source of its replenishment.” From her point of view, any elite is ruling, i.e. if the elite does not rule, then it is not the elite. The remaining members of the political class - professional managers who do not belong to the ruling elite - constitute the political-administrative elite, whose role is reduced to preparing general political decisions and organizing their implementation in those structures of the state apparatus that they directly supervise.
The elite is a full-fledged social group with a complex structure. Various parts of a single ruling elite are called sub-elites, which can be sectoral (political, economic), functional (administrators, ideologists, security officials), hierarchical (subelite layers), recruitment (appointees, elected officials). According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, “the elite cannot but be political.” At the same time, it is possible to use this term to designate a sub-elite group whose functions include direct management of the political process.
In this context we can characterize political elite as a relatively small layer of people occupying leadership positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations and influencing the development and implementation of policy in the country.
The political elite includes high-ranking professional politicians endowed with power functions and powers, senior government officials involved in the development and implementation of political programs and social development strategies. It can be divided into groups corresponding to the branches of government - legislative, executive, judicial, and also by its location - federal and regional.
The authority of the elite is the most important condition for its staying in power and maintaining power; the ruling elite must be legitimate. When a political or state community ceases to sanction the power of a given political elite, it loses the social basis of its existence and ultimately loses power.
Political elites can come to power as a result of elections, winning the political struggle against other organized minorities that aspire to the role of a political controlling group. In this case, the interaction between the elite and the masses is legal and legitimate. However, the political elite can come to power through revolutionary means or through a coup d'etat. In such a situation, the new political elite seeks to gain the necessary legitimacy through informal recognition from the unorganized majority. In any case, the relationship between the elite and the masses is based on the principles of leadership and authoritative guidance, and not blind submission. The legitimation of the political power of the elite distinguishes it from an oligarchy.
In countries with the legitimate existence of power, the content and boundaries of the functions performed by the political elite are determined by the constitution of the country. However, in real life there are often cases of discrepancies between constitutions and real power. This is possible in the event of a sharp change in the political situation, when the changes are not yet reflected in the constitution, as well as in the event of a deviation from the norms of the constitution. For example, the Constitution of the USSR declared that power at all levels belonged to the Soviets, but the real political picture did not confirm this.
6.2. Characteristics and functions of the ruling Russian elite
The elite is not uniform. Within the ruling elite there is a small, close-knit group standing at the very top of the power pyramid. T. Zaslavskaya calls it the “upper (sub-elite) layer”, O. Kryshtanovskaya - “top-elite”, L. Shevtsova - “super-elite”. This group usually consists of 20-30 people and is the most closed, united and difficult to access for research.
To the most important characteristics of the elite researchers include cohesion, awareness of one's group interests, a developed network of informal communications, the presence of esoteric norms of behavior and coded language, hidden from outside observers and transparent to initiates, and the absence of a clear line separating official activities and private life.
Russia, as well as other post-communist states, is characterized by common features that define the peculiarities of the ruling elite: strengthening the role of the executive branch, increasing the importance of informal connections and procedures, accelerating the circulation of elites, intensifying intra-elite rivalry and increasing mobility.
Under elite mobility understand entry into the elite, movement of personnel within the political system and exit from the elite. Thus, mobility can be divided into upward, horizontal and downward. Elite mobility in Russia has significant differences from the mobility of other social groups, which, according to O. Kryshtanovskaya, is associated with a number of factors:
1. Higher competition between candidates for positions than other groups, which occurs at all levels of the political hierarchy.
2. Uncertainty of requirements for candidates who must meet conditions that are not disclosed anywhere.
3. Elite mobility is subject to much more regulation and planning than other professional mobility, since there is an institutionalized personnel reserve to fill vacant positions.
4. The mobility of the elite is regulated not so much by labor legislation as by intra-group norms.
5.Unlike all other professions, joining the elite is the endowment of the individual with primary political capital, which he can develop or leave unchanged.
Some researchers have noted changes in the type of organization of the power elite. Thus, O.V. Gaman-Golutvina distinguishes two types: bureaucratic and feudal (oligarchic). Bureaucratic is based on the separation of the functions of economic and political management, oligarchic is based on their fusion. Historical basis Russian state was the universality of responsibilities to the state, which presupposed the service principle of recruiting elites, which ensured the priority of the political elite over the economic one. As a result of the reforms carried out, the service principle began to be replaced by the oligarchic principle. As a result, the model of elite education characteristic of the feudal, rather than the modern West, was reproduced. One of the most characteristic features of the modern ruling elite of Russia is the shadow merging of state power with business. This process covered all levels of government. Place and connections in the political system became the main factor in the increase of property, and property became a powerful source of political influence.
The content of political functions is greatly influenced by the political regime. T.I. Zaslavskaya considers the development, legitimization and implementation of a general strategy for reforming society to be the main functions of the elite in the transformation process. A.V.Malko inhighlights the following most significant functions of the political elite:
strategic - defining a political program of action by generating new ideas that reflect the interests of society, developing a concept for reforming the country;
organizational- implementation of the developed course in practice, implementation of political decisions;
integrative - strengthening the stability and unity of society, the stability of its political and economic systems, exclusion and permission conflict situations, ensuring consensus on the fundamental principles of the state.
To these functions we should also add the communicative function - the effective representation, expression and reflection in political programs of the interests and needs of various social strata and groups of the population, which also involves the protection of social goals, ideals and values characteristic of society.
In order to effectively implement these functions, the elite must be characterized by such qualities as a modern mentality, a state type of thinking, a readiness to protect national interests, etc.
6.3. Formation of the federal elite
In the political history of Russia XX - early XXI centuries The ruling elite has repeatedly undergone significant transformations. The first significant “revolutionary political transformation,” as S.A. Granovsky put it, occurred in October 1917, when a party of professional revolutionaries came to power. The Bolsheviks monopolized power and established the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the death of V.I. Lenin, a struggle broke out among the ruling elite for the possession of Lenin’s legacy, the winner of which was J.V. Stalin. Even under Lenin, a special ruling class was created - nomenclature(list of leadership positions, the appointment of which was approved by party bodies). However, it was Stalin who perfected the process of reproduction of the Soviet elite. The nomenclature was built on a strictly hierarchical principle with a high degree of integration based on a common ideology, with a low level of competition and a low degree of conflict between intra-elite groups. In the mid-1980s. processes of structural disintegration intensified in the ruling elite, which led to an intra-elite conflict of values and personnel associated with changes in the political course. By the end of the 1980s. The process of rapid formation of a counter-elite begins, which includes leaders and activists of various democratic movements, representatives of the creative and scientific intelligentsia. At the same time, there is a change in the mechanism for recruiting the elite. Instead of the nomenklatura principle, the democratic principle of election is affirmed.
German scientist E. Schneider, studying the political system modern Russia, believes that the new Russian political elite was formed in the depths of the old Soviet system as a type of counter-elite in various groups at the federal level. The beginning was made on May 29, 1990, when Boris Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, who also took on the functions of head of state. The second step followed after the election of B. Yeltsin as President of Russia on June 12, 1991. B. Yeltsin created his own administration, numbering 1.5 thousand people, and approaching in size the apparatus of the former Central Committee of the CPSU. The third step towards the formation of a central Russian political elite was the elections of deputies of the State Duma and the Federation Council on December 12, 1993. The parliamentary elections of 1995 and the presidential elections of 1996 led to the fourth stage. That is, E. Schneider connects the process of formation of a new Russian political elite with the election a process that has become characteristic of post-Soviet Russia.
An important factor that had far-reaching consequences for the ruling elite was the ban on the CPSU in 1991, which caused the liquidation of the traditional institutions of Soviet power, the liquidation of the institution of the nomenklatura, and the transfer of powers from the Union authorities to the Russian ones.
Researchers distinguish two stages in the formation of the post-Soviet elite: “Yeltsin” and “Putin”. Thus, O. Kryshtanovskaya, the author of the book “Anatomy of the Russian Elite,” notes that during the nine years of his rule (1991-1999), Boris Yeltsin was never able to integrate the supreme power. At the same time, no single state structure became dominant. In conditions of a power vacuum, informal groups and clans took over government functions, competing with each other for the right to speak on behalf of the president. According to the scientist, “during the Yeltsin period there was a collapse of the supreme power. The diffusion of power did not lead to a democratic separation of powers, but to managerial chaos.”
The “Putin” stage is characterized by the elimination of the causes that led to the destruction of the management vertical under Boris Yeltsin. The new president returned a significant amount of power over the regions to the federal center, expanded the center's local support base, and outlined ways to restore territorial governance mechanisms without formally violating democratic principles. A controlled, orderly system of executive power was created. If under B. Yeltsin power was dispersed, moving from the center to the regions, then under V. Putin power again began to return to the center, centrifugal tendencies gave way to centripetal ones.
Researchers note that the modern ruling elite of Russia differs from the Soviet one in many ways. important qualities: genesis, recruitment models, socio-professional composition, internal organization, political mentality, the nature of relations with society, the level of reform potential.
The personal composition of the political elite is changing, but its official structure remains virtually unchanged. The political elite of Russia is represented by the President, Prime Minister, members of the government, deputies of the Federal Assembly, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme, and Supreme Arbitration Courts, the presidential administration, members of the Security Council, presidential plenipotentiaries in federal districts, heads of power structures in the constituent entities of the federation, the highest diplomatic and the military corps, some other government positions, the leadership of political parties and large public associations, and other influential persons.
Higher political elite includes leading political leaders and those who occupy high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (immediate circle of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of government bodies, leading political parties, factions in parliament) . Numerically, this is a fairly limited circle of people who make the most significant political decisions for the entire society, concerning the fate of millions of people who are significant for the entire state. Belonging to the highest elite is determined by reputation (advisers, consultants to the president) or position in the power structure. According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, the top leadership should include members of the Security Council, which in modern Russia is the prototype of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee.
The size of the ruling elite is not constant. Thus, the nomenclature of the CPSU Central Committee (in 1981) included approximately 400 thousand people. The highest nomenklatura (nomenklatura of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee) included approximately 900 people. The nomenclature of the secretariat of the Central Committee consisted of 14-16 thousand people. The accounting and control nomenclature (nomenclature of departments of the CPSU Central Committee) included 250 thousand people. The rest was made up of the nomenklatura of lower party committees. Thus, the political class in Soviet times amounted to approximately 0.1% of total number population of the country.
In 2000, the size of the political class (the number of civil servants) increased 3 times (while the country's population decreased by half) and began to amount to 1 million 200 thousand people. or 0.8% of the total population. The number of the ruling elite increased from 900 to 1060 people.
According to the same studies, the main suppliers to the ruling elite in 1991 were the intelligentsia (53.5%) and business leaders (about 13%). During the transition period of Yeltsin's rule (1991-1993), the role of workers, peasants, intelligentsia, economic managers, and employees of ministries and departments declined. The importance of others, on the contrary, increased: regional administrations, employees of security and law enforcement agencies and, especially, businessmen.
Gradually, parliamentary and government careers became two different paths to the top, which was not typical for the Soviet elite, for which a parliamentary mandate was a corresponding attribute of nomenklatura status. Now there's a new one professional group within the elite are elected officials.
In the absence of state support, weak social groups - workers, peasants - were almost completely forced out of the political field, the share of women and youth, whose high percentage of participation in power had previously been artificially supported by the CPSU, fell sharply.
For parliamentarians, there remains a fairly high percentage of those who entered the elite back in Soviet times. In the State Duma of the first convocation (1993) there were 37.1% of them, in the third convocation (1999) - 32%; in the Federation Council in 1993 - 60.1%, in 2002 - 39.9%.
Researchers notice another feature: if in the early 1990s. the share of party and Komsomol functionaries fell, then they specific gravity among deputies of both chambers increased to almost 40%. After 10 years of the post-Soviet period, involvement in the nomenklatura ceased to be a stain on a political career. A number of studies (S.A. Granovsky, E. Schneider) show that the foundation of the new Russian ruling elite mainly consists of representatives of the second and third echelons of the old Soviet nomenklatura, passing it on to the new political elite specialized knowledge and experience she needs.
The composition of the new political elite of Russia has undergone significant changes in educational, age and professional terms.
Thus, the government and elite in the regions have become almost ten years younger. At the same time, the parliament has aged a little, which is explained by its artificial rejuvenation during the Brezhnev period. The end of age quotas freed the country's highest legislative power, both from Komsomol members and from young workers and collective farmers subject to quotas.
Boris Yeltsin brought young scientists, brilliantly educated city politicians, economists, and lawyers closer to him. The share of rural residents in his surroundings fell sharply. Despite the fact that the elite has always been one of the most educated groups of society, nevertheless, in the 1990s. there was a sharp jump in the educational qualifications of the elite. Thus, B. Yeltsin’s inner circle includes famous scientists and public figures. More than half of B.N. Yeltsin’s presidential team consisted of doctors of science. The percentage of those with an academic degree in government and among party leaders was also high.
The changes affected not only the level of education of the elite, but also the nature of education. The Brezhnev elite was technocratic. The overwhelming majority of party and state leaders in the 1980s. had an engineering, military or agricultural education. Under M. Gorbachev, the percentage of technocrats decreased, but not due to an increase in the number of humanities students, but due to an increase in the proportion of party workers who received a higher party education. And finally, a sharp decrease in the proportion of people who received a technical education (almost 1.5 times) occurred under Boris Yeltsin. Moreover, this is happening against the background of the same educational system in Russia, where the majority of universities still have a technical profile.
Under V. Putin, the proportion of people in uniform in the ruling elite increased significantly: every fourth representative of the elite became a military man (under B. Yeltsin, the share of military men in the elite was 11.2%, under V. Putin - 25.1%). This trend coincided with the expectations of society, since the reputation of the military as honest, responsible, politically unbiased professionals distinguished them favorably from other elite groups, whose image was associated with theft, corruption, and demagoguery. The massive recruitment of military personnel into public service was also caused by the lack of a personnel reserve. The main distinguishing features of the Putin elite were a decrease in the proportion of “intellectuals” with an academic degree (under B. Yeltsin - 52.5%, under V. Putin - 20.9%), a decrease in the already extremely low representation of women in the elite (from 2 .9% to 1.7%), “provincialization” of the elite and a sharp increase in the number of military personnel, who began to be called “siloviki” (representatives of the armed forces, federal service security, border troops, Ministry of Internal Affairs, etc.).
The latest wave of the ruling elite is also characterized by an increase in the share of fellow countrymen of the head of state (from 13.2% under B. Yeltsin to 21.3% under V. Putin) and an increase in the share of businessmen (from 1.6% under B. Yeltsin to 11.3 % under V. Putin).
6.4. Regional political elite
At the regional level, a new political elite was formed in different subjects at different times. This process was associated with the transition to an electoral system for the formation of a regional elite. The heads of the executive branch in Moscow and Leningrad, as well as the president of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, were elected on June 12, 1991. After the failure of the putsch on August 21, 1991, by resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the position of the head of administration was introduced in the territories, regions and districts as the head of the executive branch. The presidential decree of November 25, 1991 determined the procedure for appointing heads of administrations. By January 1992, a new government had been established in almost all territories, regions and autonomous okrugs. True, it was only partially new. Half of the heads of administration were appointed from among the former heads of executive or representative authorities, about a fifth consisted of lower-level employees of the Soviet apparatus, and only a third consisted of new appointees - directors of enterprises, employees of scientific institutions and other representatives of the non-political sphere.
In the autonomous republics, the head was the president, elected in popular elections, which contributed to the transformation of the Soviet model into a democratic one. By the end of 1994, most of the leaders of the autonomous republics were elected by popular vote.
In 1992-1993 there was a struggle between the president and Supreme Council for influencing the formation of heads of regional administrations. This struggle ended after the dissolution of the representative body of power with the adoption of the presidential decree “On the procedure for the appointment and dismissal of heads of administrations of territories, regions, autonomous districts, cities federal significance", issued on October 7, 1993. The decree stated that heads of administrations are appointed and dismissed by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Government of the Russian Federation.
However, electoral trends were gaining momentum. Therefore, in a number of regions, as an exception, back in 1992-1993. The supreme power allowed the holding of elections of heads of administration. This process continued to develop and ended with the adoption of a presidential decree on September 17, 1995, which determined the date for the election of heads of administrations of the constituent entities of the federation appointed by the president - December 1996. Thus, the transition to an elective system of heads of executive power of the constituent entities of the federation was carried out. The last appointment of the head of administration took place in July 1997 in the Kemerovo region.
The formation of the regional elite was continued by the elections of people's representatives, which, after the dissolution of councils at all levels at the end of 1993, became full-fledged legislative bodies of power.
The elections were one of the most significant achievements of democracy in Russia, leading to profound changes in the entire political system. The consequences of this transition were both positive and negative. On the one hand, a basis was created for the separation of powers, the formation of civil society, and the creation of equal subjects of the federation. On the other hand, the election of heads of subjects destabilized the political situation, allowing governors to become independent from the center. There was a danger of a new wave of “parade of sovereignties”, which could end in the collapse of the country. The federal government has virtually no leverage left over the regional elite.
In December 1995, the principle of forming the Federation Council changed. In accordance with the new provision, the upper house of the Russian parliament began to be formed by delegating two leaders of the subject of the federation - the heads of the executive and legislative branches. In the Federation Council, interregional associations began to be formed on territorial and economic principles, which threatened the center with the loss of political and financial control.
To prevent negative trends, new president V.V. Putin initiated political reforms with the aim of strengthening the power vertical. In 2000, the procedure for forming the Federation Council changed: one representative each from the executive and legislative branches of the constituent entity of the federation began to be delegated to the upper house of parliament, but not top officials, as was previously the case. At the end of 2004, a federal law was adopted that changed the procedure for electing heads of federal subjects: they began to be elected by the corresponding legislative assemblies on the proposal of the president of the country. The last popular election of the head of the administration took place in March 2005 in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug.
As a result, the power of the federal center was restored, and the heads of the regions became completely dependent on the president. The danger of the country's collapse was overcome by abandoning the democratic procedure of popular elections.
An analysis of regional leaders indicates that the overwhelming number of governors entered the elite long before their appointment to the post of head of the region. Thus, according to the data provided in the study by O. Kryshtanovskaya, in 2002, the average number of years spent in the elite of regional leaders before their appointment (election) as head of the region was 15 years, and the average number of years spent as the head of a federal subject was 6 years.
The average age of a regional leader under L. Brezhnev was 59 years old, under M. Gorbachev - 52 years old, under B. Yeltsin - 49 years old, under V. Putin - 54 years old.
The weight of the Soviet nomenclature still remains very high. In 2002, 65.9% of the heads of the federal subjects were previously members of the Soviet nomenklatura (in 1992 - 78.2%, in 1997 - 72.7%).
As O. Kryshtanovskaya notes, “the paradox is that it was not elections, but appointments that brought new people to the top.”
Characterizing professional qualities regional political elite, many researchers note its redistributive (rental) relationship to economic activity. At the same time, it should be noted such a trend as the promotion of an influential layer of intellectual, political, cultural, professional, highly educated leaders who form the core of the regional political elite. As S.A. Granovsky notes, “the nomenklatura origins of the current government, which are not easy to get rid of, represent a brake on reforms, preventing the true democratization of society, the transformation of not only political, but also all other spheres of our life. Russia has not yet formed an elite that would correspond to the new statehood that has already manifested itself.”
An important characteristic of the elite is its mentality. Practical orientations and their actual implementation in the affairs of regional political and administrative elites are reflected both in their own worldview and in the assessments of the population. Characterizing the mental characteristics of regional administrative and political elites, it should be noted their federalist thinking, the main parameters of which are the preservation of the integrity of the Russian Federation, the problems of equality of all subjects, the priority of federal laws over republican ones.
One can state a significant weakening of centro-paternalistic hopes among the regional political elite. In the minds of the elites, hopes for the capabilities of the center and own strength in the development of the economy and economic relations have almost leveled off. In many regions, the mood of “reliance on one’s own strength” already prevails. Thus, ethno-federalist, economic-federalist and political-federalist factors turn out to be combined into one complex and now act in one direction, contributing to the more rapid formation of a federalist paradigm of thinking.
On the other hand, many researchers emphasize its unprincipledness and “servility” as the most important characteristics of the political mentality of the ruling elite. Thus, O. Gaman-Golutvina notes that “admiration for power remains the dominant attitude of behavior of both the central and regional authorities, and the population.” This leads to unconditional devotion to the President, on the one hand, and a stable priority of clan interests over national ones, on the other.
6.5. Circulation and reproduction of the elite
Two waves of renewal of the upper strata can be distinguished. The first of them was associated with the invasion of reformers. The second marked the arrival of counter-reformers, whose actions should be considered as the normal completion of the reform cycle. In classical images it looks like this: “young lions” are replaced by “old foxes”.
Models circulation And reproduction elite groups should be supplemented with a third element - expansion of the elite composition. Increase in the elite ranks in the first half of the 1990s. happened more than twice. There has been a significant increase in the number of positions considered “elite.” This is caused by the growth in the number of new economic structures, the leaders of which can be classified as a new economic elite. But this is no less true and is due to the growth of political and administrative structures.
The acceleration of the circulation of Russian elites is an obvious fact. It began during the reign of M. Gorbachev due to the promotion to the top of numerous representatives of the so-called pre-nomenklatura groups from various public sectors (mostly we are talking about former middle managers - heads of departments, divisions, services).
In the 1990s. quickened pace elite traffic(relocation of the elite - a term coined by O. Kryshtanovskaya) required a change in approaches to working with personnel. Under Boris Yeltsin, there were frequent resignations and reshuffles of high-ranking officials, whom he first brought closer to himself, then became disappointed and exchanged them for others. The rapidity of personnel changes led to the destruction of the personnel reserve that helped maintain continuity. There was a need to create some kind of reservations for high-ranking officials who had fallen out of power. As a result, structures such as “state business” were created - commercial organizations based on state resources and having multiple privileges compared to private business, as well as foundations, associations, socio-political organizations, the leadership of which was assumed by retirees. Recent years Deputy activity acts as a kind of reservation, which provides the necessary honor to all former officials.
With the widespread use of alternative elections, the ruling elite no longer had complete control over the removal of undesirable individuals from the elite. Officials who lost their positions in the executive branch could be elected to the federal or regional parliament, go into big business and influence the political situation with the help of economic resources, or create a political party and actively participate in political life.
If in Soviet times resignation meant “political death,” then in post-Soviet times returns to power began to occur. Thus, among the government elite of 1992, the share of returns was 12.1%, for the government of 1999 - 8%.
Under V. Putin, the personnel situation begins to gradually change. The personnel reserve is being restored and strengthened civil service, and loyalty to the regime becomes a guarantee of status stability. Administrative reform, launched in 2004 and designed to reduce the number of bureaucrats, only restructured departments and significantly increased the salaries of civil servants. In the 2000s. It is not vertical, but horizontal mobility among the elite that is increasing. Thus, former governors become members of the Federation Council, former ministers become deputies, former officials of the presidential administration go into state business.
As studies show, according to most indicators, the nature of appointments and resignations under V. Putin has undergone minor changes: the age of entry and exit, the average number of years in office, the proportion of people of retirement age among retirees are approximately the same as under the previous president. But the main thing is that the atmosphere has changed: the growing self-confidence of the political elite, the basis of which is the high level of public trust in the president.
Changing the norms and rules of power interactions largely stems from the process elite reconversion(i.e. transfer of capital from one form to another). The decisive element of this process was the “capitalization” of elite groups. It manifested itself primarily in two phenomena. Firstly, part of the political elite converted their political influence into economic capital. Representatives of the political nomenklatura themselves entered the new business elite or protected close relatives in the economic sphere. Secondly, “capitalization” affected the political elite itself - through the expansion of corruption. Corruption has always existed, but it is in modern Russia that it has become more widespread and open than ever.
As a result, politics became associated with the most profitable business. On the one hand, large entrepreneurs seek the protection of the state and try to obtain property and privileges from the state. On the other hand, politicians are no longer satisfied with the usual attributes of power and fame. Their status positions must be supported by income into private bank accounts. As a result, large businessmen become politically influential persons, and politicians turn into very wealthy people.
The next process, which deserves special attention, is related to the mutual relations of various elite groups. Here two opposing trends usually collide - fragmentation and consolidation of elites. The fragmentation hypothesis states that there is a process of pluralization of elites and the emergence of numerous pressure groups and interests.
Confrontation between the legislative branch, presidential structures and the government, federal and regional government bodies, party groups of the left and right, political, military and economic elites, industry lobbies representing various economic complexes - all this contributes to the situation of power pluralism. Such a situation can be seen as a manifestation of the democratization of society, but more often it is seen as evidence of a power vacuum and a lack of effective management.
The struggle for power between the “old” and “new” elites also leads to fragmentation. The goal of the first is to retain power, the second is to seize key positions in the state and oust their opponents from their posts.
Opposite assessments are expressed within the framework of the hypothesis of elite consolidation. It is argued here that the dividing lines between various elite groups are increasingly blurred, and power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of subjects. Legislatures have no special power; federal bodies retained enough administrative and financial influence over the regions to determine policy at the regional level; the military elite is still loyal and subordinate to political forces; "left" and "right" party groupsdrifting towards the political “center”.
The confrontation between the political and economic elites should also not be exaggerated. On the contrary, the stage of transformation of the Russian elite is characterized by the integration of the political and economic elite. The reason for this rapprochement is mutual benefit: the economic elite is interested in the appropriate distribution of budget funds and federal investments, certain personnel policies, making political decisions beneficial to themselves, and the political elite wants to benefit from the transformation of the economy.
Thus, despite visible confrontations, consolidation of elite groups occurs.
6.6. Political corporatism
In the Western political elitethe priority is social origin, which determines the starting opportunities, conditions and guidelines for primary and secondary socialization, in contrast to Russian, where the place of this factor is taken by the previous connection with the nomenklatura elite and commitment to the leader - the manager. In other words, corporate origin.
American political scientist F. Schmitter considers corporatism"as one of possible mechanisms, allowing associations of interests to mediate between their members (individuals, families, firms, local communities, groups) and various counterparties (primarily state and government bodies).” Corporatism fits organically into the democratic legal order, as evidenced by the spread of this phenomenon in countries with developed democratic institutions, and with significant relapses in countries of unconsolidated democracy. It manifests itself especially negatively in the political sphere.
Political corporatism means the dominance in the political system of a set of persons united to achieve, implement and retain state power. The interaction of political corporations allows them to divide the market of power, preventing representatives of the wider population from accessing it. There is a mechanism of “linking” and coordination of interests between corporations. Corporations can be built according to social class, professional, family and other characteristics, but they are always based on unity of interests. The political system of modern Russia is an example of corporations interacting with each other.
Political corporations, in order to be effective, must have a certain degree of monopoly on the representation of interests. This is necessary from the point of view of influencing political decisions, since state power, when forming the goals and objectives of its activities (especially in the transition period, when the leading groups are formed from a plurality of interests), inevitably takes into account only those groups interests and corporations that have the appropriate resources, i.e. able to mobilize and control large groups of the population. Thus, certain corporatist representations take shape, and the state becomes a “corporatist state.” The basis of his policy in this case is not “public interest,” but the interest of the political corporation whose representatives are currently at the helm of state power or have the greatest influence on it.
The most powerful corporations in modern Russia are those that are based on the foundation of financial-industrial groups, possessing enormous financial resources, controlling the most important enterprises and production, gradually monopolizing the media market and thereby being able to influence the decision-making process on government and parliamentary channels.
Features of the corporatist system in Russiais that it is built on the basis of the interdependence of the most influential interest groups and the state and is of a contractual nature. For example, the former government of V. Chernomyrdin, patronizing the Gazprom corporation, received in return the opportunity with its help to solve problems in social policy. State power in Russia, driven by the need to overcome the crisis, provided opportunities for such a monopolization of interests in exchange for political and financial support. Therefore, corporations should be considered as the main support of the political regime in Russia in the 1990s.
T.I. Zaslavskaya notes that “as a result of the “market” reform of basic institutions, the state dissolved into private political and financial corporations... Behind each group of ministries, regions, and industrial complexes of Russia there is a certain ruling clan.”
As a result of the activities of political corporations, state power may find itself hostage to a group of political and economic monopolists and be subject to targeted pressure from representatives of private interests, which can lead to the oligarchization of the political regime and increased social tension in the country.
In the 2000s. a new corporatist structure emerged, associated with belonging to the intelligence services. In this structure, there is a corporate spirit of unity inherent in security employees. The statement of President V. Putin: “there are no former security officers” is a confirmation of the corporate spirit of the special services, which cements power. In such an elite, solidarity prevails. According to O. Kryshtanovskaya, despite the fact that “the whole country is becoming an arena of operational work,” ... “such power is doubly stable, especially since it is cemented by the ideology of patriotism, diluted, however, with liberal economic ideas.”
Russian scientist S.P. Peregudov, summarizing F. Schmitter’s reasoning about corporatism, identified several main positions that could make corporatism “new”, not undermining, but strengthening democracy and social peace. “Firstly, this is the presence of independent interest groups independent of the state and their focus on interacting with it for the sake of strengthening social partnership and increasing economic efficiency. Secondly, this is one or another degree of institutionalization of this interaction and the ability of the state to “impose” during the negotiation process priorities dictated by national interests. And finally, thirdly, this is compliance by all parties with their obligations and an appropriate system of monitoring their implementation.” These principles, transferred to the political sphere, could prevent or weaken negative consequences political corporatism.
6.7. Privileges as a sign of the political elite
Privilege- these are legal benefits, first of all, for government structures and officials, which they need to fully fulfill their powers.
Privileges are one of the most important characteristics of the political elite. Exclusive rights and special opportunities are closely associated with the elite because it includes groups of people with natural talent, bright talents, special ideological, social and political qualities that determine the special role of people performing the most important functions of managing society. The political elite, actively participating in the exercise of state power or in directly influencing it, spends a lot of energy, strength, and resources. In order to manage more effectively, the elite needs appropriate sources of replenishment of this energy. Therefore, the position of the elite is supported by its prestige, privileges, benefits, and therefore it enjoys significant material and spiritual benefits.
Consequently, the formation of a political elite is stimulated by the fact that the high status of managerial activity is associated with the possibility of receiving various kinds of material and moral privileges, advantages, honor, and glory.
As R. Mills writes, the power elite “consists of people who occupy positions that give them the opportunity to rise above the environment of ordinary people and make decisions that have major consequences... This is due to the fact that they command the most important hierarchical institutions and organizations of modern society... They occupy strategic command posts in the social system, in which effective means are concentrated to ensure the power, wealth and fame that they enjoy.”
However, due to the limited resources of power (material and spiritual goods, values), representatives of the elite voluntarily, as a rule, do not give up privileges. In order to win this war, the elites are forced to unite and group. The very high position of the political elite in society necessitates its cohesion and group interest in maintaining its privileged status. “For the elitist paradigm,” emphasizes G.K. Ashin, “a characteristic statement is that society cannot function normally without the elite, that it has the right to a privileged position, moreover, it must vigilantly guard its privileges from “encroachments” from the masses.”
A.V. Malko notes another factor, which determines the close connection of the elite with privileges. It consists in the fact that this group of people personifies power, which (due to the fact that it is associated with the distribution of values and resources) opens up wide opportunities for the realization of the individual interests of the elite and its entourage. Consequently, the struggle for privileges is in many ways a struggle for power, opportunities, resources, influence.
After the February and October revolutions of 1917, there was a massive abolition of feudal unjust, largely outdated privileges, and a change in political elites took place. In addition, legal advantages and exclusive rights for bodies and officials of the Soviet state began to be designated in legislation to a greater extent through the concept of “benefits”. The unfolding struggle against class and estate privileges, incompatible with the ideals of equality and justice, with the principles of socialist construction, led to the fact that the term “privilege” began to be perceived as purely reflecting unlawful advantages. In connection with this, it was practically erased from law-making circulation.
However, contrary to Marxist teaching, in Soviet society from the very beginning there was a stratification of the population into classes occupying different positions in the social structure and, accordingly, having different opportunities in the distribution of life's goods. Inequality in this regard was not some evasion of some correct standards, prescribed by the classics of Marxism, but a manifestation of the objective laws of social existence. By the end of the Brezhnev period, the class stratification of Soviet society had reached a high level. A tendency towards a decrease in the vertical dynamics of the population has become obvious, i.e. the possibilities of transition from one layers to layers of a higher level were reduced. Representatives of the highest echelons of power rarely descended to the lower ones, as they had various privileges and opportunities to acquire the benefits of life thanks to their position in society.
Such privileges, received primarily by the nomenklatura, were not enshrined in the law or were established in closed decisions. These benefits included the following: distribution of housing, summer cottages, vouchers to sanatoriums and prestigious holiday homes, scarce goods, etc.
The new political elite, headed by B.N. Yeltsin, despite the fact that it came to power in the wake of the fight against privileges, not only did not abandon the existing privileges, but also increased them.
Privilege system, as S.V. writes Polenin, unfortunately, became widespread not only during the years of stagnation and deformation of socialism, but also to an even greater extent in the current democratic period. We are talking about benefits with the help of which conditions for increased living comfort are created for a selected circle of “most responsible” persons, identified on the basis of their affiliation or proximity to those in power. In this case, benefits are not based on objective grounds and turn into ordinary privileges, the existence of which contradicts the idea of forming a rule of law state and undermines both the principle of equal rights of citizens and the principle of social justice, under the slogan of which they are usually established.”
A significant part of the ruling modern Russian elite, not possessing high managerial and moral qualities, having received enormous privileges as a result of the nomenklatura privatization of a significant part of state property, turned out to be unable to adequately govern the country and are largely to blame for the crisis that engulfed society in the 1990s. .
In a truly democratic country, illegal and excessive privileges must be abolished.It is necessary to incorporate regulations on benefits for senior officials, including the President of the Russian Federation, on a thematic basis, and then publish them for public information and control over their compliance. In addition, the question increasingly arises of careful control over the existing and emerging political elite (through the institution of elections, referendums, reports of deputies to voters, the media, public opinion polls, etc.) so that it does not turn into a closed the dominant privileged caste, but worked for the benefit of society, the majority of Russian citizens.
A political system can be considered truly democratic if it implements the supremacy of the people, whose influence on politics is decisive, while the influence of the elite is limited, limited by law, a political system in which the elite is controlled by the people. Consequently, if we cannot ignore the thesis that the presence of an elite is a real or potential threat to democracy, then the way out, the condition for preserving democracy, is in the constant control of the people over the elite, limiting the privileges of the elite only to those that are functionally necessary for exercise of its powers, maximum openness, the possibility of unlimited criticism of the elite, separation of powers and relative autonomy of political, economic, cultural and other elites, the presence of opposition, struggle and competition of elites, the arbiter of which (and not only during elections) the people speak out, in other words, everything that in its totality constitutes the modern democratic process.”
It is important for Russia to form public opinion in such a way that the political elite itself begins to limit itself to a number of privileges, which, from a moral point of view, look clearly disproportionate against the backdrop of the poor majority of the population.
For the modern Russian state, the problem of developing a qualified, highly professional political elite that the population can trust is becoming increasingly acute. Russian society needs to create such an elite, making significant efforts in order to, with the help of democratic and legal norms and mechanisms, including through legal and justified privileges, carry out a kind of “selection” of new politicians who have state thinking and are capable of taking personal responsibility for transformations in the country.
Basic concepts: reproduction of the elite, the highest political elite, consolidation of the elite, corporatism, mobility of the elite, nomenclature, political corporatism, political elite, political class, ruling elite, privileges, regional elite, elite reconversion, subelite, federal elite, functions of the political elite, elite fragmentation, elite characteristics, elite circulation, elite, elite traffic.
Questions for self-control:
1.What is the main difference between the political class?
2.What is the relationship between the political class and the ruling elite?
3.What are the different parts of the single ruling elite called?
4. Define the political elite.
5.Name the most important characteristics elite.
6. Describe the mobility of the elite.
7.List the functions of the political elite.
8.What is the difference between the “Yeltsin” and “Putin” stages of the formation of the political elite?
9. Who belongs to the political elite in Russia?
10. What changes have occurred in the composition of the new political elite of Russia?
11. What are the main features of the ruling elite formed under V. Putin?
12. Name the main stages in the formation of the modern regional elite of Russia.
13. What reforms did V. Putin initiate with the aim of strengthening the power vertical?
14. Describe the regional political elite of Russia?
15. What is elite reconversion?
16. Explain the relationship between elite fragmentation and consolidation.
17. What is the essence of political corporatism?
18. What are the reasons for the privileges of the elite?
19. What are the necessary conditions for the democratic exercise of elite group privilege?
Literature:
Ashin G.K.Change of elites // Social sciences and modernity. 1995. No. 1.
Ashin G.K.Elitology in the mirror of political philosophy and political sociology // Elitological studies. 1998. No. 1.
Gaman-Golutvina O.V. Bureaucracy or oligarchy? // Where is Russia going?.. Power, society, personality. M., 2000.
Granovsky S.A.Applied Political Science: Tutorial. M., 2004.
Zaslavskaya T.I.Modern Russian society: Social mechanism of transformation: Textbook. M., 2004.
Kretov B.I., Peregudov S.P. New Russian corporatism: democratic or bureaucratic? // Policy. 1997. No. 2. P.24.
Ashin G.K. Elitology in the mirror of political philosophy and political sociology // Elitological studies. 1998. No. 1. P.11.
Polenina S.V. Law as a means of implementing the tasks of forming a rule of law // Theory of Law: New Ideas. M., 1993. Issue 3. P.16.
Ashin G.K. Elitology in the mirror of political philosophy and political sociology // Elitological studies. 1998. No. 1. P.13-14.
Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education vocational education Vladimirsky state university named after Alexander Grigorievich and Nikolai Grigorievich Stoletov
Law Institute named after. MM. Speransky
in the discipline "Political Science"
Modern political elite in Russia
Vladimir 2015
WITHpossession
Introduction
1. The emergence of the concept and theory of political elites
1.1 Main directions of modern elite theory
1.2 Typology of the political elite
1.3 Main functions of the political elite
2. Types of political elite in Russia
2.1 Characteristics and features of the political elite in Russia
2.2 Structure of the political elite in Russia
Conclusion
Literature
INconducting
The elite, as a part of society, occupies a leading place in the system of developing social values and norms by which all segments of the population are forced to live. Without an elite, society cannot exist in principle. Any society is always divided into a dominant minority (elite) and a controlled, managed majority (the masses), oriented towards the values of the minority.
Therefore, in modern political science, particular attention is paid to elitology. There are many approaches to understanding the elite. In Russian political science, a structural-functional approach is used, when members of the elite are considered from the point of view of their position in the hierarchical system of social structures.
In fact, the elite is a full-fledged social group with a complex structure. The political elite is a relatively small layer of people (minority) occupying leadership positions in government bodies, political parties, public organizations, possessing political power, all the resources of political influence, and influencing the development of government management decisions and the implementation of policies in the country.
And in this regard, the role of the political elite in the public life of the country and in the ongoing political processes is enormous. As Cicero noted, “...a small, very small number of people placed at the head of the state is enough to correct or spoil the morals of the people.”
IN this work the general ideas of the concepts of the formation of political elites are given, the typology of elites, functions are given, the characteristic features of the Russian political elite, its problems, its structure are reflected, and on this basis the corresponding conclusions are drawn.
1. The emergence of the concept and theory of political elites
1.1 The main directions of modern elite theory
The political elite is a relatively small social group, the core of which is a fairly significant amount of political power, ensuring integration, subordination and reflection in political attitudes of the interests of various sectors of society and creating a mechanism for the implementation of political plans. In other words, the elite is the highest part of a social group, class, or political social organization.
Translated from French, “elite” means “best”, “selected”.
Firstly, one of the meanings of this word implies the possession of some of the highest traits on an established value scale.
Secondly, in everyday life, “elite” is usually called the best, most valuable group for society, rising above the masses and called upon to rule the masses.
For example, in slave-owning and feudal societies, the aristocracy acts as the elite. (“Aristos” means “best”; aristocracy means “power of the best.”)
In political science, the term “elite” has the first, more neutral, meaning. Representatives of the political elite are the most prominent owners of managerial qualities in the field of politics and functions.
The theory of the political elite presupposes the priority of politics over the economy, the social structure of society, therefore it is characterized by absolute incompatibility with the ideas of economic and social determinism, represented, for example, by Marxism, which treats politics merely as a superstructure over the economic base.
In this regard, the attitude to the study of the concept of the political elite, the structure of the ruling nomenklatura elite in Soviet social science, was considered as something pseudoscientific, not distinguished by positive features.
At the initial stages of the formation of political science, the French term “elite” became widespread at the beginning of the 20th century. thanks to the works of Sorel and Pareto, although the ideas of political elitism arose outside of France in ancient times. The ideas of elitism found their justification in the works of Confucius and Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Carly, Nietzsche.
For example, in Confucius society is divided into “noble men” (elite) and “low people” (common people). In Plato's ideas, the elite is a minority ruling over the majority.
According to Aristotle, democracy was a utopian idea, but democracy should be representative. That is, leaders must stand out from the general mass.
The ideas of elitism appeared more meaningful in the concepts of elites. XIX - beginning XX century G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels.
In the ideas of G. Mosca, the term “political class” was formulated for the first time. In his opinion, the political elite is a group of politically active people focused exclusively on power. Only people with wealth, military prowess and priesthood have access to the political class, the elite. Moreover, all political classes are oriented towards inheritance.
V. Pareto argued about the existence of two types of elite, dominant and potential. Within the ruling elite there has already been a loss of active activity, and within the potential elite there is a desire for this activity. And such mutual struggle leads to constant renewal of elites. That is, people who have the highest performance in their activities constitute the elite. Gifted people from the “bottom” rise to the elite, and members of the existing elite, degrading, fall down to the masses.
According to the concept of R. Michels, the elite is an integral companion of democracy. Power is never ceded to the “masses”, only transferred from leader to leader. It is mandatory for the state to create an organizational apparatus for the direct implementation of management. This apparatus is increasingly expanding and ultimately replacing the very idea of democracy. Michels' concept is a kind of concept of bureaucratization of the ruling elite.
So, at the end of the twentieth century. Several basic concepts of the problem of elitism in society have emerged, which will be discussed below.
The first group consists of followers of the Machiavellian approach to the study of the problem under consideration, which received its name thanks to the ideas of N. Machiavelli.
Adherents of the concept of N. Machiavelli are united by the following ideas:
– the elite has special qualities, natural gifts and talents, exceptional education in work in the struggle for power;
– the elite is united into a group distinguished by a commonality of ideas, interests, social and professional status;
– recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. And this kind of division is a completely natural phenomenon for human nature.
And despite the change in the personal composition of the elite, the dominant attitude towards the masses always remains unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, tribal leaders, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents were replaced, but the relations of dominance and subordination between them and the common people remained and always prevailed.
The struggle for power (latent or explicit, inevitable by its nature) is the main phenomenon of the formation and change of elites. This kind of struggle will always exist. There will definitely be people with a certain set of exceptional qualities, with the desire to occupy a privileged position in society. And not everyone who already occupies such a position is ready to give it up voluntarily.
The elite assumes a dominant, leading role in society and seeks to pass on its privileged position by inheritance, which, in turn, leads to the degeneration of the outstanding qualities of the elite.
Machiavellian theories of elites are not without reason subject to scientific criticism for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, rejection of democratic principles, underestimation of the potential capabilities and activity of the masses, and a negative attitude towards the struggle for power.
To overcome and improve weaknesses Machiavelli's ideas were inspired by the value theories of the elite. Like Machiavellian concepts, they consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, but their position towards democracy is softened.
The value concept is multivariate, but there are several basic ones that unite all adherents of the idea:
– first of all, a highly professional elite, people with outstanding abilities in various spheres of life. The composition of the elite has the ability to update the requirements for participants due to the constant continuous spiritual, value, and material evolution of society.
– the elite is represented exclusively by the mutual cooperation of individuals who care about the good of society, and do not pursue their own selfish goals in the struggle for power.
– the relationship between the elite and the masses is based on the dominant, authoritative principle of the ruling elite and the obedience of its power by the people. The elite must command the respect of the masses, confirmed by free elections.
– the formation of the elite occurs as a result natural selection society's most valuable representatives, and not at all as a result of a struggle for power. In this regard, society should strive to improve the mechanisms of such selection in all social strata.
– the presence of elitism as one of the main conditions for the effective functioning of any democratic society. Initially, people in a democratic state are provided with equal living conditions to start from (social equality) and, thanks to their efforts and activity, they will have their finish line. In this case, either leaders or outsiders appear.
The concepts of democratic elitism (elite democracy), which have become widespread in modern world. The origins of this concept are in the understanding of democracy proposed by J. Schumpeter as competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters.
According to the concept of democratic elitism, the existence of real democracy is impossible without the elite as the guarantor of high-quality leadership elected by the population. And it is the quality of the elite that directly affects the quality of the social value of democracy.
The management team sufficiently possesses all the qualities necessary for management, and is the bearer and ensurer of the protection of democratic principles and values.
In 1960-1970 claims about the comparative democracy of the elite and the authoritarianism of the masses have been largely refuted by concrete research. It turned out that although representatives of the elites usually surpass the lower strata of society in accepting liberal democratic values (freedom of personality, speech, competition, etc.), in political tolerance, tolerance of other people’s opinions, in condemning dictatorship, etc., but they are more conservative in recognizing the socio-economic rights of citizens: to work, to strike, to organize in a trade union, to social security, etc. In addition, some scientists (P. Bachrach, F. Naschold) have shown the possibility of increasing the stability and efficiency of the political system by expanding mass political participation.
The most widespread in modern elitist thought are the ideas of the value theory about the value-rational nature of the selection of elites in a modern democratic society. They can also be called functional theories of the elite.
The adherents of this concept do not reject the elite theory as a whole, but they support the need to revise its fundamental principles.
The main postulates of the pluralistic concept of the elite are the following:
– political elites are viewed exclusively as functional, that is, as groups whose members have certain special qualifications to occupy certain leadership positions in society. The main quality that determines membership in the elite is precisely their high qualifications to perform the functions of managing specific social processes, which is their superiority over other members of society.
– the elite cannot be considered as a single integrated privileged group. In a modern democratic society, there is a pluralism of elites, since power operates between various groups and institutions, which, with the help of direct participation, can defend their interests and find compromises. Each of the basic groups, professional, religious, regional, demographic and others, forms its own elite with values and interests unique to it.
– there is no clear, pronounced division into the elite and the masses. This theory denies the form of “supremacy-subordination” in their relationships; rather, we are talking about relations of representation. Elites are controlled by their base groups. Through the use of democratic mechanisms of elections, referendums, polls, the press, pressure groups, etc., there is social competition between elites in society. All this prevents the formation of a single dominant group and makes it possible for the elites to be accountable to the masses.
– access to the leadership stratum of basic groups is open to persons with high social status, great financial capabilities, possessing exceptional personal abilities, knowledge, skills, and a high activity indicator.
– in democratic states, elites are involved in performing important public functions related to governance.
The concepts of elite pluralism are quite widely used to theorize modern Western democracies. However, reality in these theories is significantly idealized.
According to numerous studies, a clear uneven influence of different social strata on politics and the dominance of capital has been discovered.
The ideological antipode of pluralistic elitism is left-liberal theories of the elite. The most important representative of this trend was R. Mills back in the 1950s. tried to prove that in the United States control belongs not to several, but to one ruling elite. This elite is the central core of the current system of society.
Sharing some provisions of the Machiavellian school, left-liberal elitism also has specific features:
– the main elite-forming feature is the possession of command positions and leadership positions, positions in various fields of activity.
– the diversity of the composition of the ruling elite, which includes political leaders and corporate executives, politicians, senior civil servants and senior officers. All these individuals should be united by the desire to maintain a privileged position in society, to ensure a lifestyle different from the masses, to maintain an educational and cultural level, and to form family and personal connections.
Hierarchical relationships have been formed within the ruling elite. Despite sharp criticism of the ruling US elite and the presence of politicians with large property owners, Mills is still not a supporter of the Marxist class approach.
– recognition of the deep difference between the elite and the masses. However, people who come from the people have a chance, albeit small, of becoming members of the elite only after achieving high positions. Using finance and knowledge, the ruling elite actually controls the masses without control.
– the renewal of the elite is carried out exclusively within its own environment on the basis of the acceptance of its socio-political values. The most important criteria selection are the possession of certain resources of influence, as well as business qualities.
– the primary task and function of the ruling elite in society is to ensure its own supremacy in the society of the state. And the solution of many management problems is subordinated to this function. However, Mills denies the inevitability of elitism in society and criticizes democratic positions.
Supporters of the left-liberal elite theory often deny the existence of a direct relationship between representatives of the economic elite and the political elite. However, political leaders of developed capitalist countries agree with the basic principles of the market system and see in it the optimal form for modern society social organization. Therefore, in their activities they strive to guarantee the stability of the social order based on private property and pluralistic democracy.
Western political science sharply criticizes the main provisions of the left-liberal concept of the elite, in particular the assertions about the closedness of the ruling elite, about the denial of its connection with big business. In Marxist literature, on the contrary, this direction was assessed very positively.
Thus, the main idea that permeates all existing concepts of political elitism is that the existence of elites is due to the fact that it is impossible to provide power to everyone, to carry out direct participation of the masses in making administrative government decisions, and exercising power. If this power of the elite were available to everyone and everything, its exclusivity would be lost.
1.2 Typology of the political elite
By type of activity, all elites are divided into political, economic, military, bureaucratic and cultural-informational.
The political elite is called upon to provide leadership in the development and implementation of political decisions. Most researchers call the political elite the ruling elite.
According to the method of recruiting (selecting) the elite, there is an open (entrepreneurial) and closed (guild) elite.
Depending on their place in the political system of society, there is a ruling, opposition (counter-elite) and non-ruling intellectual and cultural elite. The ruling elite is directly involved in political decision-making, while the counter-elite promotes its opposition-minded line. The intellectual and cultural elite does not play a decisive role in public administration, but its influence on the minds of the public and on behavior in society is great.
According to the nature of intra-elite relationships, a united elite, an ideologically united, a consensually united, and a divided political elite are distinguished. In the united elite there is no open confrontation; there is a unity of opinions and views. By consensus, the elite forms certain kinds of decisions on separately identified areas of policy. In a divided elite, there is constant confrontation between factions.
According to the degree of representation, there are political elites with a high degree of representation and a low one.
Elites with a high degree of representation express the interests of significant strata of society, while those with a low degree of representation express the interests of a limited circle of social strata of society.
By level of competence they denote the highest (federal level), middle (regional) and local (municipal, regional, republican) political elites.
Based on the type of government, they distinguish between totalitarian (using authoritarian power), liberal (using democratic separation of powers) and dominant (compromising), democratic elites.
All political elites are closely interconnected and cannot exist without each other.
1.3. Functions of the political elite
Political elites perform the following functions in society:
– expression of the combined interest of all classes and strata of society, development of ideas for reforming the country’s spheres of life;
– determining the political course, supporting political and management decisions (strategic and organizational functions);
– carrying out personnel policy at the highest level, promoting political leaders;
– rational distribution of values and resources in society;
– ensuring the protection of values, ideas, special goals of the country’s society (communicative function);
– pursuing a policy of preventing conflict situations in society and measures to resolve them, ensuring the stability of political and economic systems (integrative function).
2. Types of political elite in Russia
2.1 Characteristics and features of the political elite in Russia
Based on the analysis of the above theories of elitism, O. Kryshtanovskaya gives the following definition of the elite, representing it as the ruling group of society, which is the upper stratum of the political class and has the maximum power. In her opinion, this group does not have special qualities, and it can include both people of outstanding qualities and mediocre individuals.
As a rule, the main principles for entering the elite are the presence of money, power, origin, etc., but, by no means, the most worthy individuals are granted access to the elite of society.
The evaluative approach has been overcome in the political elite and it is customary to include only persons who occupy a certain status in the political system, allowing them to make appropriate political decisions.
The modern political elite of Russia began its formation in the early 1990s. It was during that period of transition to a market economy that radical changes took place in the structure of the country's political elite.
The service-nomenklatura principle of forming the political elite was replaced by the principle of elite pluralism (the creation of multiple centers of power).
Accordingly, researchers of the theory of elitism highlight the “Yeltsin” and “Putin” periods of formation of the elite in the country.
During the “Yeltsin” period, the supreme power collapsed, its integration never happened. The “Putin” period resolved the problems of the “Yeltsin” period. The necessary amount of power over the regions was returned to the federal center, and a strong system of executive power was created without violating democratic principles.
A distinctive feature of the recruitment of elites under V. Putin was the dominance of the “siloviki” and the reduction of “intellectuals”.
The problem of forming a highly professional political elite, which is not indifferent to the fate of the country and enjoys the trust of the population, is becoming increasingly acute. In this case, a more stringent selection of politicians who are capable of taking personal responsibility for decisions and transformations in the country should be carried out.
At present, the requirements for the professionalism of members of the elite, ruling groups, for the effectiveness of their rule, for the level of moral and educational level, and the ability for progressive development have been clearly formed. One of the most important problems in the development of the elite was the personnel policy, the system of training, retraining and advanced training.
The personal composition of the political elite is constantly changing. The formation and reproduction of the elite is a continuous process. However, its job structure remains virtually unchanged.
The modern political elite of Russia is headed by the president. Next comes the Prime Minister, members of the government, deputies of the Federal Assembly, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme, and Supreme Arbitration Courts, the presidential administration staff, members of the Security Council, presidential plenipotentiaries in the federal districts, heads of power structures in the constituent entities of the federation, the highest diplomatic and military corps, some other government positions, leadership of political parties and large public associations, and other no less influential persons.
Speaking about the Russian ruling political elite, it is necessary to note that the burden of historical traditions of political culture largely predetermines the methods of political activity, political consciousness and behavior of the new wave of “Russian reformers”, who by their nature and essence do not perceive other methods of action other than those that were successfully used both by themselves and their predecessors.
Political culture is multi-layered, it has been developing over centuries, it is embedded in the history of Russia in traditionalism, collectivism, paternalism, and it is not possible to subject it to radical modernization in a short period of time. Currently, there is an attempt to mechanically transfer Western European liberal ideology to Russian soil.
In modern Russia, the issue of creating a public administration system with an appropriate personnel training infrastructure for it has become acute. Thus, one of the main problems of the elite environment is the problem of increasing the managerial potential of the modern political elite. And in this case, an important fact of such an increase is the expansion of the base of elite recruitment at the expense of the sub-elite.
The problem of increasing intellectual capital, the formation of a complex of competent, loyal elite, capable of effective, positively impactful management is urgent. It is necessary to continue to take measures to reduce the incidence of corruption in the circles of the political elite.
It is extremely important to instill democratic values and principles of humanism into the political elite, and to orient the work of elite circles towards the protection of public interests.
The weakness of the modern Russian political elite is manifested in the lack of a clear ideological orientation. The composition of the elite must be constantly updated, since it is the outdated layers of the elite that are often ardent opponents of modernization measures. But according to historical facts it is clear that many major modernization events in countries took place thanks to the effective work of the modernization-minded political elite.
A “centre of modernization”, a certain group of like-minded people united by common ideological ideas, should be created within the political elite.
According to the conducted scientific research many modernization projects in the country failed, largely due to the weakness of modernization attitudes in the political elite.
In this regard, a large-scale program of reform of public administration and civil service is currently being implemented.
2.2 Structure of the political elite in Russia
The political elite of Russia is heterogeneous in its essence and internally differentiated and diverse. It is divided into
– ruling at the federal level, possessing state power;
– regional ruling;
– opposition (counter-elite);
– non-ruling intellectual and cultural;
- near-elite environment. And another division into:
– the highest, making decisions that are significant for the state;
– average, taking into account public opinion;
– lower (local);
– administrative (bureaucracy).
The ruling elite is represented by the President of the country, the Vice President, all members of the presidential staff, heads of representative bodies of power, the Prime Minister, his deputies, deputies, heads of ministries, administrations, senior military officials, heads of diplomatic missions abroad, leaders of political parties, social movements , leading media.
The control elite is filled with members of opposition parties, movements, representatives of the creative intelligentsia, and academic staff. As such, the counter-elite is not endowed with power and does not have access to managerial functions.
The intellectual and cultural political elite is the most creative and socially advanced. It includes the creative intelligentsia, active businessmen, theater workers, artists, and journalists.
The near-elite environment is represented by assistants (advisers, consultants, lawyers, managers, scientists, etc.) of persons directly involved in politics, who have the opportunity to indirectly influence management decision-making. These representatives are a kind of conductors between representatives of other groups.
In fact, the niche of the highest political elite is filled by leading political leaders, persons holding high positions in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (immediate circle of the president, prime minister, speakers of parliament, heads of government bodies, leading political parties, factions in parliament).
In quantitative terms, this is a fairly limited circle of people who make the most significant political decisions for society and the state as a whole. Belonging to the highest elite is determined by the established reputation in the social system, financial position (the so-called “oligarchs”), as well as position in the power structure.
The average political elite is formed from a large number of elected officials: deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council, heads of administrations and deputies of legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the federation, mayors of large cities, leaders of various political parties and socio-political movements, heads of electoral districts.
The ruling political elite in Russia, in its structure, also consists of a number of groups, between which there is a constant struggle for dominance in the upper echelons of power. The horizontal integration of the political elite is quite low. Healthy political competition of its kind in the elite and sub-elite environment does not yet exist at a sufficient level.
The middle elite consists of approximately 5% of the population, who simultaneously possess three qualities: income, professional status and education. People with a high level of education and low incomes are more critical of existing social relations and gravitate toward left-wing radicalism or centrism. Representatives of the middle elite, whose income exceeds their level of education, are adherents of right-wing political positions and are the most critical of their social status.
In modern conditions, there is also a tendency to increase the role of the middle elite, civil servants, managers, scientists, administrators, in the formation of public opinion, preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. It is this “subelite” that is ahead of the top elite in awareness and ability to act in solidarity. However, the development of this trend is usually restrained by authoritarian political regimes, striving by all means to keep the “subelite” in line with their policies. Therefore, the process of forming a stable democratic elite is very complex. But only this type of political elite is able to have a close connection with the people, the highest level of interaction with all layers of society.
The local political elite includes political figures on a local scale (districts, cities, villages, etc.).
The administrative functional elite (bureaucratic) is the highest stratum of civil servants (bureaucrats) occupying senior positions in ministries, departments and other government bodies. Their role is to prepare general political decisions and organize their implementation in those structures of the state apparatus that they directly supervise.
The structure of Russia's political elite also includes a variety of groupings. The ideas of justice, public order, and the effectiveness of government are shared by all parties, in which ways they are similar to each other, despite differences in foundations.
In addition to those listed above, the political elite includes representatives of the ruling class who are not formally associated with politics, but have an indirect influence on it.
Conclusion
Summarizing the above, it should be noted that a complete, smoothly working system for replenishing the political elite still does not exist in modern Russia, which indicates the lack of maturity of the country’s political system as a whole. The elite formation process in our country continues to this day.
A way out of this situation would be to introduce new system recruiting elites based on competitive principles, institutionalizing requirements for the business and moral qualities of members, which will create a highly professional elite with a set of the best professional, business, and moral qualities, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the effectiveness of Russia's development.
The effectiveness of the country's modernization strategy directly depends on the elite. Consequently, an ineffective elite only contributes to the demodernization of society.
With V. Putin coming to power, the ruling elite took many steps to transform both the political system and the country’s political elite into an authoritarian-democratic one. The Federal Assembly, the main political parties, business elite, most regional leaders, major electronic media.
For a democratic state, of which Russia is included, the primary task at present is to form the most qualified elite, politically useful for society, authoritative, morally healthy, interested in the stability of society, dedicated to the idea of the prosperity of Russia, and suppressing the process of transforming the elite into a closed dominant privileged group.
“The country will definitely have an elite of real leaders, truly talented politicians and competent managers on a national scale. Strong-willed qualities, dedication and even decency alone are not enough for such an elite. We need a high legal, managerial and spiritual-moral culture. Only an elite consisting of people of such qualities, in close alliance with those who have achieved success in science, culture and business, will be able to ensure the security of the country and a decent life for people, successfully fight corruption and terrorism, and guarantee the steady strengthening of Russia’s role in international affairs ."
Thus, it seems that the future of the Russian political elite will depend on the individuals within it and the social motives that guide these individuals in their activities. For the sake of their own survival and improvement, the political elite must take measures to improve the health of society as a whole and recruit its representatives. This is precisely the key to preserving Russia as a state.
Literature
1. Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2007. April 27.
2. Ashin G.K., Ponedelkov A.V., Ignatov V.G., Starostin A.M. Fundamentals of political elitology: Textbook. - M.: PRIOR, 1999
3. Baranov N.A. Study guide. Political relations and the political process in modern Russia: A course of lectures. St. Petersburg: BSTU, 2004.
4. Gorbach K. Post-Soviet elites: convulsions of a newborn child. M., 2005
5. Kryshtanovskaya O. Anatomy of the Russian elite. M.: Zakharov, 2005
6. Ozhegov. S.I. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / S.I. Ozhegov. M.Yu. Shvedov. -M.: 2004
7. Ponedelkov A.V., Starostin A.M. Elitologists about elites. Rostov-on-Don: SKAGS Publishing House, 2007
8. Gorelov. A.A. Political science in questions and answers / A.A. Gorelov.-M.: Eksmo, 2009
9. Abramova I.E., Ponomarenko T.V. Russian political elite in the context of modern political development // Theory and practice of social development. 2013. No. 12. T. 2.
10. Ashin G.K. Recruitment of elites // Power. - 1997. - No. 4.
11. Ashin G. The ruling elite and society // Free Thought. - 1993. - No. 7
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
The structure of the politically active part of the country’s population, the importance of the political elite in its organization. Characteristic features and purpose of the political elite, the order of its interaction with the rest of society. Typology and recruitment of the political elite.
abstract, added 11/22/2009
The emergence of the concept and theory of elites. The mechanism of formation of the Russian political elite. Formation of the modern Russian political elite at the regional level: features and trends. Possible directions for the development of the Russian political elite.
abstract, added 04/06/2008
course work, added 11/09/2010
Characteristics of the basic scientific concepts of the elites. Structure, functions, typology and mechanisms of formation of political elites. Specifics of the formation of the political elite of Belarusian society. The relationship between position in society and the political skill of a leader.
test, added 08/28/2011
The concept of elite and the main theories of the emergence of ideas of elitism, their similarities and distinctive features. Origin, types and functions of political elites, their classification according to various criteria. Mechanisms for recruiting political elites and their state in Ukraine.
abstract, added 08/01/2009
The founders of the theory of the political elite and the manifestation of the aristocratic tendency in society. The provisions of the classical concept and the process of formation of the “top of power” in Russia. The importance of political elites in periods of transition and crisis for the country.
test, added 12/19/2010
Studying the concept of “political elite” - a group, a layer of society that concentrates state power in its hands and occupies command posts and controls society. Typology of elites. Social performance of the elite. Elite recruitment systems.
abstract, added 09/06/2010
Transformation public relations. Essence, nature and leading features of the political elite. Historical aspect. Typological diversity, classification of the political elite. The modern political elite of Russia, its distinctive features, features.
test, added 10/28/2008
The concept of "political elite", its functions and qualities. Types of political elites. The ruling elite. Recruitment, reproduction and circulation of elites. Autonomy of elites and the problem of their consensus. The mechanism of interaction between elites and citizens of a democratic society.
test, added 02/18/2008
Elite as a value element of the social system. Administrative-bureaucratic, spiritual, political, military, financial and economic elite. The meaning, structure and functions of the political elite. Theories of the political elite, oligarchic tendencies.
Instead of a preface:
Disposition
The country's elite - what is it?
In front of an astonished public in the country with the most extensive presidential powers - the United States - President Trump was pushed with his intentions into the farthest corner of the Oval Office. Thus, the enviable stability of America's government course and the continuity of its policies were demonstrated, regardless of who is in power there.
At the same time, on the opposite side of the globe, the refrain is increasingly heard: “If one (just one) person leaves politics - the current president of the Russian Federation - then a government change of course may occur with catastrophic consequences for the country. As an example, the extremely unfavorable consequences of the change from Alexander III to Nicholas II, and Stalin to Khrushchev are given...
It is precisely this phenomenon - about the stunning dependence of such a huge country as Russia on the specific personality of the ruler - that I would like to talk about, and to focus not on “Why did this happen?”, but to try to do this strictly on a practical plane, with an eye to the eternal “ What should we do?”, and not to the government and deputies, but to ordinary citizens who do not roam the corridors of power and do not have accounts in offshore jurisdictions.
There are several words, the presence of which in the title of any article guarantees an epic holivar and increased public attention. One of these irritants for the entire civil society is the term “elite”. No matter how you quote academic definitions, people still associate the word “elite” with the concept of “the best” and are very upset if such a term refers to someone who, according to their moral and business criteria, does not meet this concept.
The fact that the current self-appointed elitists are the Achilles heel and the main weakness of the Russian Federation can be heard today from every voice. Only the lazy do not talk about the need to form a new elite (new oprichnina), but everyone breaks down on procedures and methods... Oh, those methods... Oh, the other side of traditional Russian paternalism...
On issues of elite formation, civil society generates proposals that immediately exclude citizens from the number of active participants in the process. “The Supreme Ruler must appoint those we like!”- this is the sublimation of various types of elite formation that is present in society today. However:
· Why should a ruler appoint those who are liked not by him, but by someone else?
· Why should the one who was appointed by the ruler try to please someone else besides him?
· How is a ruler supposed to guess who is really useful, who the people like, and who just went for a walk along the Boulevard of Populism?
All these questions only aggravate and emphasize the problem of forming an elite through the subjective opinion of one, even the most senior and responsible person. An elite formed in this way usually suffers from nihilism towards predecessors and fear of successors, making forward movement impossible without hesitation and setbacks.
So, on the one hand, there is a thousand-year-old financial intern, who has the same thousand-year experience of colonizing countries by non-military methods and an extensive network structure of forming adherents and agents of influence. On the other hand, there is the age-old hope for the Tsar-Father, who must figure out who and how to cope with all this misfortune, select the appropriate personnel and organize the process...
Are expectations too high? Wouldn’t it be a strategically correct step to support the traditional hierarchical structure of Russian statehood with something networked... Well, if only because hierarchical structures in a fight with network ones are doomed to defeat... Before the revolution, the network structure of the Russian Empire was the peasant community, which was a serviceable supplier of not only cannon meat, but also the intellectual elite, starting with Lomonosov and ending with Yesenin.
At the beginning of the 21st century, there were no communities or peasants left in Russia, but the challenges and threats remained the same. And it is necessary to somehow respond to them, forming a popular elite, as an alternative to the one that “our Western partners” are actively forming within the Russian world.
How to do this?
Russian President Vladimir Putin undoubtedly recognizes and understands the problem of forming an elite for which there is no shame. And he doesn’t just accept it, but during all this time he has tried almost all the available tools for its formation from above. There should be no shame in her, she should be able to adequately respond to modern challenges and could be an alternative to the “heroes of the 90s.”
The All-Russian competition “Leaders of Russia”, the All-Russian Popular Front, the “Ours” Movement, United Russia - here is a short list of incubators of the new oprichnina, each of which suffers from the same original sin: the right to select the best is left to functionaries who are not at all interested in the appearance of someone better than themselves. And they themselves (according to the population) are far from being examples of competence, integrity and patriotism. Maybe that’s why the listed incubators have not had much success at all?
The logic of objective and natural events occurring in the global macroeconomy already poses the question head-on in front of national politics - the mobilization of civil society or the complete annihilation of the state. The instinct of self-preservation works wonders, and it is not at all alien to the celestials, and as soon as they understand that such mobilization is the only way for their personal survival, they become the most enterprising organizers of it.
However. Should ordinary citizens not vested with power passively wait for the formation of new versions of United Russia - 2, 3, 4, and so on? What losses will society suffer before new Minins and Pozharskys appear? Isn’t it worthwhile to initiate the process of their materialization from below before these losses become catastrophic?
The beauty of civil initiatives is that their authors are not bound by any of the obligations that any leader is bound by. Unlike public politicians, ordinary citizens can afford an unlimited number of initiatives, finding through trial and error the option of self-organization that best meets modern challenges and threats.
Therefore, I turn from general words to sentences, stipulating that these are only my thoughts, private and imperfect, in the hope that commentators will definitely add them with their own proposals - exemplary and publicly acceptable.
A few days ago, a photograph circulated on the RuNet, comparing the bonuses of winners of natural science Olympiads and athletes - naturally, not in favor of the “nerds.”
Commentators justified the injustice of this situation by the consequences of these victories, when the records of athletes can bring the maximum - moral satisfaction to the fans, while the victories of scientists turn into the shield and sword of the state, thanks to which external enemies can click their teeth, but no longer dare to touch...
Commentators generally propose to correct this situation by changing government incentive measures, which are absolutely fair, but not entirely constructive, because ordinary citizens have a very indirect influence on decision-making on government incentive measures. But popular stimulation of young talents, if organized at the very grassroots level, can kill two birds with one stone - support morally and financially the representatives of the truly popular elite and unite the citizens themselves.
To make the winner of the International Olympiad in Natural Sciences a millionaire, it is enough for his talent to be appreciated by 10,000 people, each worth 100 rubles. Of course, 100 rubles is not a like, you need to tear them away from yourself, but if you consider this possible, then the weight of such a decision will be more significant.
Although the point here is not a hundred rubles, but ten thousand, who shared the opinion that there is someone worthy for whom the contents of his own wallet are not spared. This worthy one, for whom money is not a pity, will be that elitist. He will know exactly on whom his personal elite status depends.
Developing this idea, we can talk about those for whom people do not mind a personal plane and yacht. It’s a pity for Roman Abramovich and others like him. But for Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov, it’s not a pity at all. The wealth of Russian people does not irritate them. The bearers of this wealth are annoying if they took it from the people without their consent.
If the tradition of material and popular support for its best representatives turns out to be systemic and massive, the scientists, doctors, teachers, engineers and representatives of other professions promoted and encouraged in this way will become a real alternative to self-promoted privatizers and their followers.
This may look like a network of the most diverse funds for permanent support of specific talents and transitional bonuses for winners of competitions and Olympiads, working exclusively on a voluntary basis and naturally uniting only those who want and have the ability to support someone or something.
Just yesterday, building such a system was absolutely unrealistic - only those who constantly loomed in the TV box could claim the public’s attention. But today, when the number of people watching TV is steadily declining, and it has become possible to check and double-check information online, there is little hope for its objectivity.
Well, if you don’t like it, it doesn’t work out, or it doesn’t hook you, that’s also not a problem. This means that either my proposal is of poor quality, or “the people are not yet ready for debauchery,” or maybe both. The formation of a new elite is inevitable, like the rising of the Sun, and through what mechanisms is the third question. Let's hope that not through the armed forces, because we exhausted the limit on revolutions and coups back in the 20th century.
What is the world behind the scenes? Andrey Fursov
How can an ordinary person join the world elite? Andrey Fursov
Descendants of hermaphrodites - the world "elite"
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...
