The political elite of a non-democratic society. The concept of elite pluralism. Types and kinds of political elite

Criteria of political elite

Definition 1

The political elite is considered as a group of people who, to a greater or lesser extent, have the ability to manage society, while state or municipal power is concentrated in the hands of its representatives, persons occupy leadership positions in society, exercising control over it.

The political elite exists for the following reasons:

The society needs to be managed, and the political elite copes with this task perfectly.
The abilities and capabilities of people are a priori not equal, which is used by representatives of the elite, including the political one. Without this criterion, the existence of power would be impossible.
Representatives of the political elite occupy a high position in society and often among other members of the political elite.
Not all people want power. The majority of the population is politically passive, many do not have active suffrage, which makes its implementation impossible for certain categories of the population.
Society cannot fully exercise control over the activities of the elite, which makes it attractive to certain categories of the population.

It is also possible to single out the criteria for the formation of a political elite, which consists in the following main positions:

the need to form a small and self-sufficient social group;
having a high social status;
access to state information, the availability of a sufficiently significant amount of this information;
the possibility of direct participation in the exercise of power;
leaders have organizational skills and talent.

Signs of the political elite

Signs of the political elite as a special stratum of society can be expressed in the following positions.

The leader determines the political program for the activities of a specific structure, whether it be a state or a specific region, a state or municipal body, and so on.

The formation of a new political project-program occurs due to the generation of new ideas that reflect the interests of society and the state, are aimed at developing a concept for the development of these elements.

The development of a specific political course, the formation of which takes place in practice, taking into account the developing social relations.

Achieving stability and unity of society by strengthening it, reaching consensus on the most important issues, resolving conflict situations or search for their optimal solution.

Representation of the rights and interests of certain categories of the population, assessment of their needs and ideals, values, since on the basis of these criteria many social groups are united into a single whole.

The essence of the elite is that people who have high performance in their activities become representatives of this elite. This charismatic personalities, and this indicator is estimated as one of the most important.

Remark 1

Often leaders have a significant intellectual superiority over other people, which determines their status in a particular body or structure.

The main task of the leader is to represent the interests of the majority, although the interests of the minority are sometimes taken into account. Often leaders occupy high places in society due to their genetic origin, but there are other cases. Leaders influence their social progress through personal achievement and through their position in society. They have authority and are able to lead the masses. Such persons receive quite a lot of prestige and status in society. Leaders who come to the elite count on access to material and non-material benefits of a different nature, characteristic of this category of the elite.

In order for the political elite to be effective, it must meet the following criteria:

a certain level of progress and well-being of the people must be achieved, that is, the activities of representatives must be aimed at solving this problem;
society must be politically stable, otherwise the elite will not be able to gain a foothold in it;
national security must be fully ensured, otherwise the political elite will not be able to develop freely in this state;
the rights and obligations of civil society and the state should be optimally correlated with each other, otherwise there will be a bias, which will negatively affect the development of social relations.

Speaking about elite education, it is understood as the education of children of a narrow circle, which is selected according to the criteria of nobility, wealth and genetic origin. Often, the so-called sign of blood is distinguished, which is dominant in traditional society. Equally important is the power of wealth, especially in an industrial society. In the information society, knowledge is very powerful. Despite such a wide range, elite education has a number of disadvantages, since people from ordinary families cannot be realized in this area and, accordingly, we are losing the talents of children whose families cannot enter the elite.

On the other hand, elite education should be of very high quality, since its basis is the development of talents and creativity in children, which should not depend on genetic or other similar factors. In order to absorb all necessary material, and the child must be mentally developed, have a high set of abilities.

Today, special elite and elite schools are being formed, the difference between which is very clearly visible. For example, children, having entered an elite school, are far from always able to “pull” education, due to the fact that education in many of these schools is paid, and the parents of many children are not able to pay this is the money that educational institutions require today . Therefore, such children are forced to move to other schools. Here "elite" is synonymous with prestigious.

Elitism in a democratic society

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

Remark 1

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

The relationship between the political elite and society is shown in the theories of democratic elitism, which argue that the elite must rule in order for popular power to survive.

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

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

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

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

Ideologies of political elites in democratic societies

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

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

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

The Role of the Political Elite in Democratic Societies

Remark 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The emergence of the concept and theory of elites

1.1. The origin of the concept of "political elite"

The word "elite" in translation from French means "the best", "choice", "favorites". In everyday language it has two meanings. The first of them reflects the possession of some intensely, clearly and maximally pronounced features, the highest on a particular scale of measurements. In this sense, the term "elite" is used in such phrases as "elite grain", "elite horses", "sports elite", "elite troops", "thieves' elite", etc.

In the second sense, the word "elite" refers to the best, the most valuable group for society, standing above the masses and called upon, by virtue of possessing special qualities, to manage them. Such an understanding of the word reflected the reality of a slave-owning and feudal society, the elite of which was the aristocracy. (The term "aristos" itself means "the best", respectively, the aristocracy - "the power of the best".)

In political science, the term "elite" is used only in the first, ethically neutral sense. Defined in the most general form, this concept characterizes the bearers of the most pronounced political and managerial qualities and functions. The theory of elites seeks to exclude leveling, averaging in assessing the influence of people on power, reflects the uneven distribution of power in society, competitiveness and competition in the field of political life, its hierarchy and dynamism.

The scientific use of the category "political elite" is based on well-defined general ideas about the place of the role of politics and its direct carriers in society. The theory of the political elite proceeds from the equality and equivalence or even the priority of politics in relation to the economy and the social structure of society. Therefore, this concept is incompatible with the ideas of economic and social determinism, represented, in particular, by Marxism, which interprets politics as just a superstructure on the economic basis, as a concentrated expression of the economy and class interests. Because of this, and also due to the unwillingness of the ruling nomenklatura elite to be the object of scientific research, the concept of the political elite in Soviet social science was regarded as pseudo-scientific and bourgeois-tendentious and was not used in a positive sense.

Initially, in political science, the French term "elite" became widespread at the beginning of the 20th century. thanks to the works of Sorel and Pareto, although the ideas of political elitism originated outside France in ancient times. Even at the time of the decomposition of the tribal system, views appeared that divided society into higher and lower, noble and rabble, aristocracy and ordinary people. These ideas received the most consistent justification and expression from Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, Carlyle, Nietzsche. However, this kind of elitist theories have not yet received any serious sociological justification. The first modern, classical concepts of elites arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are associated with the names of Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels.

1.2. Mosca's theory of elites .

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

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

Noting the cohesion of the group of managers and its dominant position in society, Mosca called it a political class. This class is subject to gradual changes. There are two tendencies in its development: aristocratic and democratic. The first of these is manifested in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact. The predominance of the aristocratic tendency leads to the "closure and crystallization" of the class, to its degeneration and, as a result, to social stagnation. This, ultimately, entails an intensification of the struggle of new social forces for the occupation of dominant positions in society.

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

The concept of Mosca's political class, having a great influence on the subsequent development of elite theories, was criticized for some absolutization of the political factor (belonging to the managerial layer) in the social structuring of society, for underestimating the role of the economy. With regard to a modern pluralistic society, such an approach is largely unjustified. However, the political class theory has found unexpected confirmation in totalitarian states. Here, politics acquired a dominant position over the economy and all other spheres of society, and in the face of the nomenklatura bureaucracy, the prototype of the "political "class" described by Moska was formed. In totalitarian states, entry into the political nomenclature, accession to power and management became the root cause of the economic and social domination of the "class of managers ".

1.3. Pareto and Michels concepts .

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

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

The ruling elite is internally united and fighting to maintain their dominance. The development of society occurs through periodic change, circulation of the two main types of elites - “foxes” (flexible leaders using “soft” leadership methods: negotiations, concessions, flattery, persuasion, etc.) and “lions” (tough and decisive rulers, relying primarily on strength).

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

R. Michels (1876-1936) made a major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites. He explored the social mechanisms giving birth to the elitism of society. Basically, in solidarity with Mosca in interpreting the causes of elitism, Michels pays special attention to organizational abilities, as well as the organizational structures of society, which strengthen the elitism and elevate the ruling stratum. He concluded that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it.

The “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” operates in society. Its essence lies in the fact that the development of large organizations, inseparable from social progress, inevitably leads to the oligarchization of the management of society and the formation of an elite, since the leadership of such associations cannot be carried out by all their members. The effectiveness of their activities requires functional specialization and rationality, the allocation of a leading core and apparatus, which gradually, but inevitably, get out of the control of ordinary members, break away from them and subordinate politics to their own interests, taking care, first of all, about maintaining their privileged position. Ordinary members of organizations are not competent enough, passive and show indifference to daily political activities. As a result, any organization, even a democratic one, is always actually ruled by an oligarchic elite group. Such most influential groups, interested in maintaining their privileged position, establish various kinds of contacts among themselves, unite, forgetting about the interests of the masses.

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

In the works of Mosca, Pareto and Michels, the concept of the political elite has already received a fairly clear outline. Its most important properties were outlined, parameters that make it possible to distinguish and evaluate various elite theories modernity (these parameters will be used below). These include:

1) special properties inherent in the representatives of the elite;

2) relationships that exist within the elite layer and characterize the degree of its cohesion, integration;

3) relations between the elite and the non-elite, the masses;

4) recruiting the elite, that is, how and from whom it is formed;

5) the role (constructive or destructive) of the elite in society, its functions and influence.

2. The main directions of modern elite theory.

2.1. Machiavellian school

The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto and Michels gave impetus to broad theoretical, and later (mainly after the Second World War) empirical research of groups that led their state or claim to do so. Modern theories of elites are diverse. Historically, the first group of theories that have not lost their modern significance are the already briefly considered concepts of the Machiavellian school (Mosca, Pareto, Michels, etc.). They share the following ideas:

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

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

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

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

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

Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, anti-democratism and underestimation of the abilities and activity of the masses, insufficient consideration of the evolution of society and the modern realities of "welfare" states, and a cynical attitude towards the struggle for power. Such criticism is largely unfounded.

2.2. Value theories

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

1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and indicators in the most important areas of activity for the whole society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on meeting its most important needs. In the course of development, many old ones die off and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the carriers of the most important qualities for their time by new people who meet modern requirements. So in the course of history there was a change of the aristocracy, embodying moral qualities and, above all, honor, education and culture, by entrepreneurs, whose economic initiative society needed. The latter, in turn, are replaced by managers and intellectuals - the bearers of such important for modern society knowledge and managerial competence.

2. The elite is relatively united on a healthy basis of the leadership functions it performs. This is not an association of people striving to realize their egoistic group interests, but the cooperation of persons who care primarily about the common good.

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

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

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

Some supporters of the value theory of elites are trying to develop quantitative indicators that characterize its impact on society. So, N.A. Berdyaev, based on an analysis of the development of different countries and peoples, derived the “elite coefficient” as the ratio of the highly intelligent part of the population to the total number of literate people. The coefficient of elites, which is over 5%, means that the society has a high potential for development. As soon as this coefficient dropped to about 1%, the empire ceased to exist, stagnation and ossification were observed in society. The elite itself turned into a caste, a priesthood.

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

2.3. Theories of democratic elitism .

The main provisions of the value theory of elites underlie the concepts of democratic elitism (elite democracy), which have become widespread in modern world. They come from Joseph Schumpeter's understanding of democracy as a competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters. As Karl Mannheim wrote, “Democracy entails an anti-elitist tendency, but does not require going all the way to the utopian equation of the elite and the masses. We understand that democracy is characterized not by the absence of an elite stratum, but rather by a new way of recruiting and a new identity of the elite.”

Proponents of democratic elitism, referring to the results of empirical research, argue that real democracy needs both elites and mass political apathy, since too high political participation threatens the stability of democracy. Elites are necessary, first of all, as a guarantor of a high-quality composition of leaders elected by the population. The very social value of democracy depends decisively on the quality of the elite. The ruling stratum not only possesses the properties necessary for governing, but serves as a defender of democratic values and is able to restrain the political and ideological irrationalism, emotional imbalance and radicalism often inherent in the masses.

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

2.4. Elite pluralism concepts

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

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

2. Denial of the elite as a single privileged relatively cohesive group. In a modern democratic society, power is dispersed among various groups and institutions that, with the help of direct participation, pressure, the use of blocs and alliances, can veto objectionable decisions, defend their interests, and find compromises. The relations of power themselves are changeable, fluid. They are created for certain decisions and can be replaced to make and implement other decisions. This weakens the concentration of power and prevents the formation of a stable ruling stratum.

3. The division of society into the elite and the masses is relatively, conditionally and often blurry. Between them there is a relationship of representation rather than domination or permanent leadership. With the help of various democratic mechanisms - elections, referendums, polls, the press, pressure groups, etc. - it is possible to limit or even prevent the operation of the “law of oligarchic tendencies” formulated by Michels and keep the elite under the influence of the masses. This is facilitated by the competition of elites, reflecting the economic and social competition in modern society. It prevents the formation of a single dominant leadership group and makes it possible for the elites to be accountable to the masses.

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

5. In democratic states elites perform important social functions related to governance. To speak of their social dominance is unjustified.

2.5. Left-liberal concepts

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

1. The main elite-forming feature is not outstanding individual qualities, but the possession of command positions, leadership positions. The power elite, writes Mills, “consists of people in positions that enable them to rise above the common man and make decisions of great consequence.<...>This is due to the fact that they command the most important hierarchical institutions and organizations of modern society.<...>They occupy in social system strategic command posts, in which are concentrated the effective means of securing the power, wealth and fame that they enjoy. It is the occupation of key positions in the economy, politics, military and other institutions that provides power and thereby constitutes the elite. This understanding of the elite distinguishes left-liberal concepts from Machiavellian and other theories that derive elitism from the special qualities of people.

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

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

3. Deep difference between the elite and the masses. Natives of the people can enter the elite only by occupying high positions in the social hierarchy. However, they have little real chance of doing so. The possibilities for the masses to influence the elite through elections and other democratic institutions are very limited. With the help of money, knowledge, and a well-established mechanism for manipulating consciousness, the ruling elite controls the masses virtually uncontrollably.

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

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

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

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

3. Typology, social performance and elite recruiting.

3.1. General definition and reasons for the existence of an elite

Each of the main directions of the elite theory discussed above reflects certain aspects of reality, focuses on certain historical eras and countries. The most important features and aspects of the elite identified in them allow us to give it general definition. Political elite- this is an internally differentiated, heterogeneous, but relatively integrated group of persons (or a set of groups) that constitutes a minority of society, to a greater or lesser extent possessing the qualities of leadership and prepared to perform managerial functions, occupying leadership positions in public institutions and (or) directly influencing the adoption power decisions in society. This is a relatively privileged, politically dominant group that claims to represent the people and in a democratic society is to some extent controlled by the masses and relatively open to any citizens with the necessary qualifications and political activity to join it.

Its existence is due to the action of the following main factors:

1. psychological and social inequality of people, their unequal abilities, opportunities and desire to participate in politics;

2. the law of the division of labor, which requires professional employment in managerial work as a condition for its effectiveness;

3. high social significance of managerial work and its corresponding stimulation;

4. wide opportunities for using managerial activities to obtain social privileges (since political and managerial work is directly related to the distribution of values);

5. the practical impossibility of exercising comprehensive control over political leaders;

6. political passivity of the broad masses of the population, whose main interests usually lie outside politics.

3.2. Typology of elites

These and some other factors determine the elitism of society. The political elite itself is heterogeneous, internally differentiated and differs significantly in different historical stages and in different countries. This, as well as the specifics of research approaches, complicate its classification.

Depending on the sources of influence, elites are divided into hereditary such as the aristocracy valuable- persons holding highly prestigious and influential public and state positions, overbearing- the direct holders of power and functional- professional managers who have the necessary leadership positions qualification.

Among the elites there are ruling directly in possession of state power, and opposition(counter-elite); O open recruited from society, and closed reproduced from its own environment, for example, the nobility.

The elite itself is divided into higher and middle. The highest elite directly influences the adoption of decisions that are significant for the entire state. Belonging to it may be due to reputation, for example, unofficial advisers to the president, his "kitchen office", or position in power structures. In Western democracies, there are approximately 50 members of the upper elite for every million inhabitants. Among the highest elite, a core is often singled out, characterized by a special intensity of communications and interaction, and usually numbering 200-400 people.

Approximately 5 percent of the population is classified as the middle elite, which are distinguished simultaneously by three criteria - income, professional status and education. Individuals who score top in only one or two of these criteria are classified as marginal the elite. As Carl Deutsch notes, “In general, people whose educational level is much higher than their income are usually more critical of existing relationships, tend to centrism or left radicalism in their political beliefs. Persons whose income significantly exceeds the level of education are also often dissatisfied with their position, prestige and, as a rule, take right-wing political positions. Thus, the views of the country's elite 5 percent of the adult population, as determined by the ratio of income, professional status and educational level, can tell a lot about what is politically acceptable and what is not acceptable for a given country.

Many political scientists note a trend towards an increase in the role of the middle elite, especially its new layers, called the "sub-elite" - top officials, managers, scientists, engineers and intellectuals - in the preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. These layers usually exceed top elite in awareness, organization and ability to take common action.

The political elite, directly involved in the process of political decision-making, adjoins the elite administrative designed for performing activities, but in fact it has a great influence on politics.

One of the fairly meaningful classifications of the political elite in a democratic society is the allocation, depending on the degree of development and the ratio of vertical (social representativeness) and horizontal (intra-group cohesion) connections of the elite of its four main types: stable democratic(“staged”) elite - high representativeness and high group integration; pluralistic— high representativeness and low group integration; overbearing- low representativeness and high group integration and disintegrated- both indicators are low (see table).

		Social representativeness
		high	low
Group integration	high	stable democratic	overbearing
Group integration	low	Pluralistic	Disintegrated

Optimal for society is a stable democratic elite that combines close ties with the people with a high degree group cooperation, which makes it possible to understand political opponents and find compromise solutions acceptable to all.

3.3. Elite performance and integration .

The elitism of modern society is a fairly proven fact. Any attempts to eliminate it and politically level the population only led to the domination of despotic, ineffective elites, which ultimately harmed the entire people. Political elitism can be eliminated only through public self-government. However, at the present stage of the development of human civilization, the self-government of the people is more an attractive ideal than a reality. For a democratic state, it is not the fight against elitism that is of paramount importance, but the formation of the most effective, useful for society elite, ensuring its social representativeness, timely qualitative renewal, preventing the trend of oligarchization, turning into a closed ruling privileged caste.

The social performance of the elite, which characterizes the effectiveness of its performance of the functions of managing society, is made up of many indicators. Among the most important of them are optimal combination horizontal and vertical integration and efficient system recruiting which provides high professional competence and value orientations necessary for leading personnel: honesty, respect for laws and human rights, concern for the common good, etc.

Horizontal integration is the cooperation of various representatives of the elite, its group cohesion. Kept within certain limits, it is a necessary condition for making collective decisions, protecting society from political polarization and radicalization, increasing the ability of leaders to find compromise solutions and reach consensus, prevent and resolve conflicts. However, intra-group integration contributes to the social performance of the elite only when it does not occur due to the weakening of its social representativeness, which characterizes the expression by the elite of the interests of the whole society. As E. Hoffmann-Lange notes, modern "elites tend to emancipate themselves from their own base, the demands of which they perceive as a restriction on their freedom of decision-making."

3.4. Social representativeness of the elite .

The expression by the elite of the requests and opinions of the population depends on many factors. One of them is the social origin of its representatives. It largely influences political orientations.

It is clear that people who come from among peasants, workers, certain ethnic and other groups find it easier to understand the specific needs of the respective strata and to find a common language with them. However, it is by no means necessary that the interests of workers be defended by workers, farmers by farmers, youth by youth, and so on. This can often be done better by professional politicians who come from other sections of society.

In modern states, the disproportionality of representation in the elite of the population is quite large. Thus, among the elite of Western countries, university graduates are much more widely represented than other groups. And this, in turn, is usually associated with a fairly high social status of the parents. On the whole, the disproportionate representation of different strata in the political elite usually grows as the status of a position rises. On the first floors of the political and administrative pyramid, the lower strata of the population are represented much more widely than in the higher echelons of power. The disproportion in the social indicators of the political elites and the entire population does not mean that the leaders' political orientations are not representative.

More important, in comparison with the formal reflection-elite of the social structure, the guarantee of the social representativeness of the elite is its organizational(party, trade union, etc.) belonging. It is directly related to the value orientations of people. In addition, parties and other organizations usually have sufficient opportunities to influence their members in the right direction.

In a modern democratic society, party mechanisms for controlling the elites are supplemented by state and public institutions. Such institutions include elections, the media, opinion polls, pressure groups, and so on.

3.5. Elite recruiting systems .

Great impact on social representativeness, qualitative composition, the professional competence and effectiveness of the elite as a whole is provided by the system of its recruitment (selection). Such systems determine: who, how and from whom selects, what are its procedures and criteria, the circle of the selectorate (persons carrying out the selection) and the motives for its actions.

There are two main systems for recruiting elites: guilds and entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial). In their pure form, they are quite rare. The entrepreneurial system prevails in democratic states, the guild system - in the countries of administrative socialism, although its elements are also widespread in the West, especially in the economy and the state-administrative sphere.

Each of these systems has its own specific features. So, the guild system is characterized by:

1) closeness, the selection of applicants for higher posts mainly from the lower strata of the elite itself, a slow, gradual path to the top. An example here is the complex bureaucratic ladder, which involves gradual advancement along the numerous steps of the service hierarchy;

2) a high degree of institutionalization of the selection process, the presence of numerous institutional filters - formal requirements for holding positions. These can be party affiliation, age, work experience, education, leadership characteristics, etc.;

3) a small, relatively closed circle of the selectorate. As a rule, it includes only members of a higher governing body or one first leader - the head of the government, firms, etc.;

4) selection and appointment of personnel by a narrow circle of managers, lack of open competition;

5) the tendency to reproduce the existing type of elite. In essence, this feature follows from the previous ones - the presence of numerous formal requirements, appointment to a position by top management, as well as a long stay of the applicant in the ranks of this organization.

Entrepreneurskaya The elite recruiting system is in many ways the opposite of the guild system. It is distinguished by: 1) openness, wide opportunities for representatives of any social groups to claim leadership positions; 2) a small number of formal requirements, institutional filters; 3) a wide range of electorate, which may include all the voters of the country; 4) high competitiveness of selection, sharpness of rivalry for occupying leadership positions; 5) the variability of the composition of the elite, the paramount importance for this of personal qualities, individual activity, the ability to find support from a wide audience, to captivate it with attractive ideas and programs.

This system values outstanding people more. It is open to young leaders and innovations. At the same time, certain disadvantages of using it are the relatively high risk and unprofessionalism in politics, the relatively weak predictability of politics, and the tendency of leaders to be overly fond of externalities. In general, as practice shows, the entrepreneurial system of recruiting elites is well adapted to the dynamism of modern life.

The guild system also has its pros and cons. Among her strengths include the balance of decisions, a lower degree of risk in their adoption and a lower likelihood of internal conflicts, greater predictability of politics. The main values of this system are consensus, harmony and continuity. At the same time, the guild system is prone to bureaucratization, organizational routine, conservatism, the arbitrariness of the selectorate, and the substitution of formal selection criteria for informal ones. It breeds mass conformity and makes it difficult to correct mistakes and eliminate shortcomings initiated from below. Without the addition of competitive mechanisms, this system leads to the gradual degeneration of the elite, its separation from society and its transformation into a privileged caste.

3.6. The nomenklatura system and its social consequences

Actually, this is what happened in the countries of administrative socialism, where for many decades the nomenklatura system of recruiting the political elite dominated - one of the most typical variants of the guild system. The essence of the nomenklatura system is the appointment of persons to any socially significant leadership positions only with the consent and recommendation of the relevant party bodies, in the selection of the elite from above.

In the USSR, for example, the negative social consequences of the functioning of this system were intensified by its comprehensive nature, the complete elimination of competitive mechanisms in the economy and politics, as well as the ideologization, politicization and non-potization (dominance of family ties) of selection criteria. Such criteria were complete ideological and political conformism (“political maturity”), partisanship, personal devotion to higher leadership, servility and flattery, family ties, ostentatious activism, and so on. These and other similar norms - filters weeded out the most honest and capable people, disfigured the personality, gave rise to a mass type of gray, ideologically notorious worker, incapable of genuine initiative, who sees only personal gain in occupying leadership positions.

The long-term destructive impact of the nomenklatura system, as well as the destruction in wars and camps of the color of the people, their best representatives, led to the degeneration of the Soviet political elite. The situation did not change even after the liquidation of the power of the CPSU, since in Russia, unlike many countries of Eastern Europe, no influential, truly democratic counter-elite capable of effectively leading society was formed.

The nomenclature past, exacerbated by the almost complete absence social control and mores of the legalized businessmen of the shadow economy, was clearly manifested in the post-communist Russian elite. Her low business and moral qualities largely explain the permanence and depth of the crisis of Russian society in the last decade, the massive spread of corruption and irresponsibility. The way out of this situation, the successful reform of society is possible only through the creation of a new system of recruiting elites based on competitive principles and the institutionalization of requirements for the business and moral qualities of political and administrative leaders.

The rather weak political activity of citizens, the low effectiveness of the Russian elite, the incompleteness of the process of recruiting a new leadership layer and, at the same time, its paramount importance for the transformation of the country - all this makes the problem of the political elite especially relevant for Russian society. The social mechanisms of its recruitment directly affect not only the social role and appearance of this group as a whole, but also determine the typical features of its individual representatives - political leaders.

Literature

Ashin G.K. Elitology. - M., 1995.

Gaman-Golutvina O.V. Russian political elites. - M., 1998.

Mills R.I. ruling elite. - M., 1959.

Narta M. Theory of elites and politics. - M., 1978.

Okhotsky E.V. Political elite and Russian reality. - M., 1996.

Fundamentals of political science. Ed. V.P. Pugacheva. - M., 1993.

Ponedelkov A.V. Political elite: genesis and problems of its formation in Russia. - Rostov n / D., 1995.

Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. Introduction to political science. - M., 2000.

Solovyov A.I. Political science: Political theory, political technologies. - M., 2000.

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

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

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

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

Types of political elites

Question. Concept and typology of political leadership.

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

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

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

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

Leader Types

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The theory of elites began to be actively developed at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. such major representatives of European political thought as G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels leadership of the "incompetent" masses.

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

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

The ruling elite is internally united and fighting to maintain their dominance. The development of society occurs through a periodic change, circulation of the two main types of elites - “foxes” (flexible leaders using “soft” leadership methods: negotiations, concessions, flattery, persuasion, etc.) and “lions” (tough and decisive rulers, relying primarily on strength).

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

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

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

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

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

The Machiavellian school recognizes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) In relation to state power:

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

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

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

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

6) By type of activity:

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

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

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

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

Among the conditions that ensure the successful functioning and strong political positions of the ruling elite, the following are usually mentioned:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) Of great importance in the selection are the personal qualities and individual merits of the applicant for a place in the elite.

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

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

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

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

Researchers distinguish between two stages in the formation of the post-Soviet elite: "Yeltsin's" and "Putin's". So, O. Kryshtanovskaya - the author of the book "Anatomy of the Russian Elite" - notes that during the nine years of his reign (1991-1999) B. Yeltsin could not integrate the supreme power. At the same time, none state structure did not become dominant.

The "Putin" stage is characterized by the elimination of the causes that led to the destruction of the administrative vertical under B. Yeltsin. The new president returned to the federal center a significant amount of power over the regions, expanded the base of support for the center in the field and outlined ways to restore the functioning of the mechanisms of territorial administration, while not 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 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 job structure remains virtually unchanged. The political elite of Russia is represented by the president, prime minister, members of the government, deputies Federal Assembly, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme, Supreme Arbitration Courts, the office of the presidential administration, members of the Security Council, authorized representatives of the president in federal districts, heads of power structures in the subjects of the federation, the highest diplomatic and military corps, some other government positions, the leadership of political parties and large public associations, and other influential people.

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

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

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

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

Under V. Putin, the proportion of people in uniform in the ruling elite increased significantly: every fourth representative of the elite became a military man (under B. Yeltsin, the share of military men in the elite was 11.2%, under V. Putin - 25.1%). This trend coincided with the expectations of society, since the reputation of the military as honest, responsible, politically unbiased professionals favorably distinguished them from other elite groups, whose image was associated with theft, corruption, and demagoguery. The main distinguishing features of Putin's elite were the decline in the proportion of "intellectuals" with academic degrees (under B. Yeltsin - 52.5%, under V. Putin - 20.9%), the decrease in the already extremely low representation of women in the elite (from 2 9% to 1.7%), the "provincialization" of the elite and a sharp increase in the number of military men, who began to be called "siloviki" (representatives of the armed forces, the federal security service, border troops, the Ministry of Internal Affairs).

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

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

As studies show, according to most indicators, the nature of appointments and dismissals under V. Putin has undergone minor changes: the age of entry and exit, the average number of years in office, the proportion of 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 high level public confidence in the president.

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Bibliography

Granovsky S.A. Applied Political Science: Tutorial. M., 2004.
Zaslavskaya T.I. Modern Russian Society: The Social Mechanism of Transformation: Textbook. M., 2004.
Panarin A.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.
Political Science: Textbook / Ed. A.S. Turgaeva, A.E. Khrenova.- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.
Tavadov G. T. Political science: Textbook. - M .: FAIR - PRESS, 2000.
Schneider E. The political system of the Russian Federation / Per. with him. M., 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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