from lat. "legitimus" - legal) - legality political power, its public recognition, approval by the majority of the population and agreement to obey the authorities.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
LEGITIMITY
from lat. Legitimus - agreeing with the laws, lawful, lawful). The meaning of the concept "L." translated into Russian. language as the authority of power. History of the concept "L." dates back to the Middle Ages, when an understanding of love was formed as agreement with customs, traditions and established behavior. Primarily law was interpreted as the right of supreme officials to act in accordance with customs, but already around the middle of the 14th century. begins to be used in the sense of the authority of elected authorities. This term was introduced into political science and developed in detail by M. Weber. German the sociologist and political scientist pointed out that any power needs its own self-justification, recognition and support. It is the recognition of power, faith in its fair nature, agreement with the established division of rights and responsibilities that, according to Weber, constitutes the basis of L. The subordination of the main “mass” to the dominant groups is based on the predominantly emotional nature of the acceptance of power. Thus, L. reflects mainly the subjective - irrational attitude of persons and structures subject to power itself. In the 20th century, category “L.” actively used in Western political science. First of all, it is used to characterize political stability and analyze the effectiveness of political institutions. In America In political science, the concept of L. was intensively developed by S. Lipset (“Political Man”) and L. Binder (“Iran. Political Development in a Changing Society”), in French. political science M. Duverger. In the late 60s - early 70s. the problem of L. was studied in close connection with the theory of domination by representatives of the Frankfurt School, primarily J. Habermas (“Problems of Legitimation of Late Capitalism”), as well as K. Eder, K. Offe and M. Foucault. L. is not only a theoretical problem of modern political science, but also the most acute practical task of any power systems. The absence of broad legal institutions of power inevitably leads to the refusal of those in power to recognize any acts of power, regardless of their rationality, to political instability, tension, and increased conflicts. The most problematic is ensuring broad political power during the period of transformation of social systems, the transition from one political regime to another, when the old ways of justifying power are destroyed and rejected by the majority, and new ones have not yet been created and do not work. In such a situation, the authorities begin to “slip” - decisions are made, but not implemented. As experience shows, the legislative expansion of the executive branch of government does not contribute to its effectiveness or overcoming the crisis of government institutions. A way out of the state of “anarchy” is possible through the search and creation of broad L. power, a necessary condition which in a democratic society are free elections on a multi-party basis.
Literature: Ozhiganov E. N. The concept of “legitimation” in the theory of the political system // Development of political systems in the modern world. M., 1981; Ozhiganov E. N. Political theory of Max Weber. Riga, 1986; Shpakova R.P. Legitimacy of political power: Weber and modernity // Soviet State and Law, 1990, No. 3.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
- LEGITIMATE
aya, oh, men, mna, legal. Legal, in accordance with the law in force in a given state. Legitimate actions. Quite l. act... - LEGITIMATE V Encyclopedic Dictionary:
, -th, -oe (special). Recognized by law, in accordance with the law. II noun legitimacy, -i, g. L. ... - LEGITIMATE in the Popular Explanatory Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language:
-aya, -oe; -men, -my, legal. Legal, in accordance with the law in force in a given state. Legitimate actions. A legitimate act of expression of will. ... - LEGITIMATE
legal, legitimate... - LEGITIMATE in the New Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Efremova:
- LEGITIMATE in Lopatin's Dictionary of the Russian Language:
legitimate; cr. f. -man,... - LEGITIMATE in the Spelling Dictionary:
legitimate; cr. f. -man,... - LEGITIMATE in the New Dictionary of the Russian Language by Efremova:
adj. Being in accordance with the law in force in the state; ... - LEGITIMATE in the Bolshoi Modern explanatory dictionary Russian language:
adj. Being in accordance with the law in force in the state; legal... - LEGITIMATE; KR. F. -MEN in Full spelling dictionary Russian language:
legitimate; cr. f. -man,... - GUENON
(Guenon) Rene (1886-1951) - French thinker, researcher of the so-called. Sacred tradition and its various versions. Bachelor of Philosophy. Converted to Islam in 1912. ... - AIDUKEVICH in the Newest Philosophical Dictionary:
(Ajdukiewicz) Kazimierz (1890-1963) - Polish logician and philosopher. In 1920-1930 he belonged to the Lviv-Warsaw school. Main works: “On the meaning of expressions” (1931), ... - DISCIPLINARITY, DISCIPLINE in the Dictionary of Postmodernism.
- POPES in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". List of Roman bishops The opinion that the founder of the Roman see, who occupied it from 42 to 67, ... - THEODOSIUS I THE GREAT in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Roman emperor who reigned between 379 and 395 AD. Descended from the natives of Spain and was the son of Theodosius, the brave... - LOYAL in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
aya, oh, flax, flax Formally keeping within the limits of legality, within the limits of a benevolently neutral attitude towards someone. Quite l. political leader. Loyal... - LEGAL in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
aya, oh, flax, flax Recognized, permitted by law. Legal group. Legal position. Legality is a property of the legal.||Cf. LEGITIMATE, LOYAL... - THEODOSIUS I THE GREAT in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
? Roman emperor who reigned between 379 and 395 A.D. Descended from the natives of Spain and was the son of Theodosius, ... - DAD LIST in Collier's Dictionary:
The oldest surviving list of Roman bishops, which is given in the treatise Against heresies (Adversus haereses) by Irenaeus of Lyons and brought to the pope ... - LEGITIMATE in the Russian Synonyms dictionary:
legal, legitimate... - LAW in the Russian Synonyms dictionary:
permissible, legitimate, logical, legal, legitimate, legitimate, justified, formalized, righteous, correct, right, ...
Any power needs legitimacy.
Legitimacy - a political property of a public authority, meaning recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power that is based on popular consensus is legitimate.
Concept "legitimacy" means recognition by the community of an indisputable basis for officials (rulers) to exercise power functions. It is opposed to the illegal seizure of power, its usurpation. Legitimacy implies trust in authorities and support for rulers, i.e. loyalty, on the part of the majority of community members, because in any society there are always people who are in opposition to the rulers.
The main thing in the concept of “legitimacy” is the nature (“tonality”) of the attitude towards power on the part of the population (people) subject to it. If the population (people) accepts and positively evaluates the government, recognizes its right to govern, and agrees to submit to it, then such power is legitimate. If this is not the case, and the people do not “love” the government and do not trust the government, although they submit to it for the time being within the framework of the instinct of self-preservation (primarily because of the fear of mass repression), then such a government appears as illegitimate.
Understanding the question of the legitimacy of state power requires knowledge of the content and sources of not only the three classical types of legitimacy - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal (democratic) - but also such types as ideological, technocratic, etc. It is also necessary to answer the question of how the legitimacy of power and its effectiveness (effectiveness) are related to each other.
Technocratic legitimacy
Along with the traditional types of legitimacy of power (traditional, charismatic and rational-legal), there is also such a type as technocratic legitimacy.
For the simple reason that politics deals with the interests and destinies of millions of people and the cost of mistakes in this area often takes the form of tragedies of entire nations, the question of the effectiveness of politics and politicians is particularly acute. It is with this issue that technocratic legitimacy is connected, the core of which is the requirement for the authorities to be competent, to be professional. It should be borne in mind that for those who exercise power or hope to achieve it, politics takes on the character of a craft, a specialized occupation, which necessarily presupposes the presence of special knowledge and experience. If this is not so, then politics turns into politicking and loses its effectiveness. The essence of technocratic legitimacy is expressed very figuratively by Russian folk proverbs: “If you take up the tug, don’t say that it’s not strong,” “If you don’t know the ford, don’t poke your nose into the water.”
As a formula reflecting the relationship (interdependence) between the legitimacy and effectiveness of power, the rule is: the degree of legitimacy of power is most often directly proportional to its effectiveness, i.e. the more efficiency, the more legitimacy. And vice versa. If this efficiency, as they say, “the cat cried,” then the initially legitimate government, which does not cope with the tasks assigned to it, over time loses the trust of citizens and turns into illegitimate in their eyes.
If we evaluate the government in post-socialist Russia through this prism, then it clearly lacks professionalism. It is known that Germany and Japan, defeated and thoroughly destroyed in the Second World War, took about 15-20 years to perform an “economic miracle” and be reborn like a “phoenix from the ashes.” Over the same period of time (if we date the start of market reforms to August 1991), we have not yet even restored in full something that (through thoughtlessness or malicious intent) was thoroughly destroyed.
It is no coincidence that on October 26, 2006 - the day after the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin spoke live with the people, during which he had to “take the rap” for all the “sins” of the executive powers that be - the then Chairman of the Federal Government M. Fradkov put the members his office a disappointing diagnosis: “collective irresponsibility” associated with “organizational weakness and insufficient knowledge of the subject.” That is, what you lead and manage.
Types of legitimacy
Distinguish three "ideal types" legitimacy:
- traditional, based on a body of customs, the validity of which has been recognized since time immemorial, and on the habit ingrained in a person to adhere to such customs;
- charismatic, which is entirely characterized by the personal devotion of people subordinate to the cause of a person and their trust only in his person as a leader-chief;
- rational, arising from the correspondence of power to the rational principle with the help of which the legal order of the current political system is established.
In relation to this last type, the concept of “democratic legitimacy” is used as a synonym.
In addition to these three “ideal types”, other types of legitimacy are distinguished, namely:
- technocratic, which can be expressed by the Russian proverb: “If you take up the tug, don’t say it’s not strong,” i.e. power must be professional;
- ontological(ontology - the doctrine of being), which contains the correspondence of power to the universal principles of human and social existence.
Structural legitimacy
Most important factor recognition of the validity of the board is the formation of authorities on the basis of legality. This structural legitimacy(first view). It is called so because it determines the structure of the political system. Such legitimacy can come in two forms. Firstly, this traditional legitimacy, which implies public recognition of rulers who have received power in accordance with the traditions and customs of a given community: elders, chief (the most authoritative leader), monarch, etc. Secondly, this is more common in democratic communities legal legitimacy, i.e. public recognition of the transfer of power in accordance with established laws on elections of government bodies.
However, the acquisition of powers by rulers on a legal basis does not yet guarantee them the preservation of trust and support, that is, legitimacy. Abuse of power, violation of laws and citizens' ideas about justice, ineffectiveness of authorities in managing society can cause a political crisis, erosion of trust, i.e. loss of legitimacy. In established democracies, crises of legitimacy are resolved in a civilized manner. For this purpose, procedures are provided for the removal from power of a ruler who has lost his authority. For example, an increase in extra-parliamentary forms of political activity (rallies, protest marches, etc.) can lead to the voluntary resignation of political leaders, early elections, a referendum, etc.
Charismatic legitimacy
Charismatic legitimacy is based on faith in the special talent of the leader, who claims access to political power, my charisma - a Divine gift, grace. Citizens' trust in this case is emotional in nature and is based on personal sympathy for the leader. At the same time, the importance of legal norms is belittled on both sides. The charismatic method of legitimizing rulers is often used during periods of revolution, when new authorities cannot rely on law or tradition.
The named types of legitimacy are ideal models. In political practice they are intertwined and complement each other. New types of legitimacy are currently emerging. The strengthening of nationalism led to the emergence of the so-called ethnic legitimacy— formation of power structures along national lines. This variety can be classified as a type of legal legitimacy, when the qualification of nationality is explicitly or implicitly used in elections.
Degree of legitimacy, i.e., trust in rulers, is quite difficult to establish quantitatively. However, there are certain indicators that can be used for this purpose. Among them are: the level of coercion necessary for the performance of managerial functions on the part of rulers; the nature of attempts to replace government representatives, manifestations of civil disobedience (riots, strikes, etc.); election results; survey results; etc.
Legitimacy of political power
Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. The word “legitimacy” itself comes from the Latin. legitimus- law. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, theoretical justifications emerged that a monarch who becomes a tyrant and does not fulfill his destiny deprives his power of legitimacy. In this case, the people have the right to overthrow such a government (F. Aquinas, in particular, spoke about this).
Legitimacy is the confidence of the people that the government will fulfill its obligations; recognition of the authority of the authorities and voluntary submission to it; an idea of the correct and appropriate use of power, including violence. Legitimate power, as a rule, is capable of ensuring stability and development of society without resorting to violence.
M. Weber identified three main types of political domination and the corresponding forms of legitimacy:
- traditional domination - legitimacy based on the traditions of a patriarchal society, for example, monarchy - traditional legitimacy;
- charismatic dominance - legitimacy based on real or imaginary outstanding qualities of a ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy;
- domination based on rationally created rules— rational and legal legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in a democratic society.
In addition to those listed, there are other types of legitimacy, for example: ontological, ideological, structural, etc.
Ontological legitimacy is most characteristic of ancient and traditional societies, when existing norms of existence are perceived by people as a naturally (non-human) established order, and its violation as a catastrophe, anarchy, chaos. This is the recognition by a person (society) of the existing order as the norm of existence, which applies not only to society, but to all outer space. Such legitimacy is closely connected with the life and death of the canonized political leader of the nation. His life represents power and order, and his death represents anarchy and chaos. History knows many examples when, after the death of their leader, people experienced fear of the future. As an example, we can cite the death of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Kim Il Sung (North Korea), etc.
At the core ideological legitimacy there lie certain ideological “constructs” - attractive ideas, promises of a “bright future” or “new world order”, religious dogmas, etc. Thus, communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely provided legitimacy to the Soviet regime of power; The ideas of National Socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany. Some countries in the Near and Middle East have elevated Islam to the rank of state ideology.
Structural legitimacy is based on the rules and norms established in society for the establishment and change of power, for example, the constitution (constitutional legitimacy). If the majority of citizens are dissatisfied with the existing political power in society, then they “tolerate” it until new elections.
The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. The government, which has legitimate grounds for dominance in society, as a result of its ineffective policies may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. On the contrary, power that has no legal basis, as a result of effective policies, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. The process of recognizing the legitimacy of power is called se legitimization, and its loss of legitimacy - delegitimization.
Any political power, even the most reactionary, strives to appear effective and legitimate in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community. Therefore, the process of legitimizing power is a subject of special concern. ruling elite. One of the most common techniques is to hush up the negative results of one’s policies and “stuff out” real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Often a hindrance in such a substitution negative factors Independent media are turning positive. Illegitimate and ineffective authorities are afraid to enter into dialogue with society and with their opponents, so as not to completely reveal their inconsistency. Therefore, it strives in every way to limit the activities of independent media or put them under its control.
from lat. legitimus - in agreement with the laws, legal, lawful) is a political and legal concept that means a positive attitude of the inhabitants of the country, large groups, public opinion (including foreign) towards the institutions of power operating in a particular state, recognition of their legitimacy. The question of law usually arises when a government (political regime) changes as a result of a revolution or coup.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
LEGITIMITY
lat. legal) is a mandatory sign of the legitimate power of any civilized state, denoting its recognition both within the country and in the international arena.
L. as a concept took shape during the period of the English and French bourgeois revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries, but it came into active use only in early XIX c., when, with his help, supporters of the monarchy in France sought to restore the power of the king as the only legitimate one, in contrast to the power of the usurper. At the same time, the concept of law acquired another meaning, associated with the recognition of this power and the territorial borders of the state by the entire international community.
The law of power is its ethical assessment, which should not be confused with the concept of legality as a legal characteristic. Any government, if it issues laws and ensures their implementation, is legal. But at the same time, it may remain unrecognized by the people, i.e. not to be legitimate (meanwhile, not only illegitimate, but also illegal power can operate in society, for example, the power of shadow workers, mafia structures).
M. Weber proposed to distinguish between three “ideal types” of L.: traditional, charismatic and rational. Traditional literature is based on a set of customs and the habit of adhering to them. It is within this framework that L.’s justification for the monarchy fits. Thus, until 1879 in France, to justify royal authority, they referred to the traditional principle of inheritance, which was considered as a historical precedent. Charismatic leadership is determined by the devotion of subjects (subjects) to the cause or personal qualities of the leader. An example is the popularity of General Charles de Gaulle in France, who was the first, since the establishment of the Third Republic in the country in 1970, to begin to use the concept of law in relation to political power. Rational law implies compliance of the actions of a political regime with the principle with the help of which it was established. For example, if we are talking about democracy, then the actions of the authorities must comply with its requirements. In practice, this can be expressed in the assertion of power with the help of traditional democratic institutions (elections, referendum).
To maintain law, a wide variety of measures are used: changing existing legislation and forms of government; taking into account national traditions and customs; separation of political institutions from the army; implementation of economic and social programs; support for law and order; popularization of personal qualities of state and government leaders, etc.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Any human society, no matter whether it consists of many millions or just a few people, cannot exist without some kind of power structure. People are programmed by nature to form a hierarchical structure, in which some play a leading role, while others play a subordinate role.
But if among animals the issue of choosing a leader is resolved simply - whoever is stronger and more aggressive will be the main one - then for people the fundamental concept is legitimacy, i.e. competence of the existing power structure.
What is legitimacy? Meaning of the word.
Social sciences call legitimacy an essential property of power, i.e. that without which power simply does not exist or it remains only nominal. Word "legitimacy" derived from Latin "legitimus", which means "legal, lawful" and means the degree to which power is recognized by other people.
Legitimate power is recognized without objection by all the people subject to it, its orders do not cause resistance and are carried out unquestioningly. The lower the legitimacy of the government, the more it is forced to rely on coercion to implement management functions.
History of the concept
The concept of legitimacy, the legitimacy of power, is one of the oldest in human society, but the term itself arose relatively recently, about two hundred years ago. A bourgeois revolution took place in France, later called the Great, and the population was divided: some recognized the power of the revolutionary Convention, and later Napoleon, who proclaimed himself emperor, while others were confident in the illegality of these authorities and fought against them, trying to restore the power of the deposed king.
Napoleon on long time managed to establish his rule, pacifying the dissenters. Despite the fact that from the point of view of the law, his rise to power, and therefore the power itself, was quite dubious, it was nevertheless recognized by almost the entire population of the country, which means that this power was legitimate in the eyes of the French.
D. Beetem's rules of legitimacy
The English political scientist D. Beetham developed the structure of the legitimacy of power. 
According to his concept, power has legitimacy when:
- complies with the rules accepted in society or established with her arrival;
- the rules justifying its establishment refer to a philosophical worldview shared by both the authorities and the governed people;
— there is evidence of a consensus between the authorities and the people.
In the beginning, legitimacy was synonymous with legality. Today, this concept means recognition by the population of the right to power, which is not always based on legal grounds. Legitimacy should not be confused with legality - compliance of power with existing legal norms.
Max Weber's Theory of Legitimacy
According to the fundamental theory of the German philosopher and economist Max Weber, in order to legitimize power, the presence of two main factors is necessary: recognition of it as such through existing state institutions and the duty of the population to obey this authority. Weber identified three basic types legitimacy:
- traditional, based on long-standing custom - for example, monarchical inherited power or the power of elders, patriarchs, etc.;
- charismatic, based on outstanding personal qualities - the power of a leader, leader, prophet, often not supported by law and formalized retroactively;
- rational, which is based on the legal procedure for obtaining power through elections, which can be democratic (through the will of the governed) or technocratic (obtained through demonstrated abilities). 
In reality, neither type of legitimacy can exist in pure form. State power of any nation acquires its own forms characteristic of the country, which are a mixture different types legitimacy.
However, the most widespread today is rational form democratic power, which, in turn, can have different sources its legitimacy.
Source of legitimacy
Rational power can be based on several sources (foundations) of legitimacy in the eyes of the population:
— ideological principles convincing citizens that this form of government best suits their well-being;
— trust in the mechanism for obtaining power, traditions and norms that have existed for many tens or even hundreds of years;
— positive personal qualities of subjects personifying power (president, chancellor, prime minister);
- rational calculation of citizens on certain factors in relation to;
- coercion from the outside government agencies or political machine;
— the influence of foreign sources of power.
It is clear that power cannot be equally legitimate for everyone. How fewer people recognizes it, the more often and more strongly the authorities are forced to resort to forceful methods. Modern society is increasingly inclined to consider the legitimacy of the current subject of power through the prism of its own well-being, i.e. How effectively does the government act to ensure it? 
In this aspect, power can be considered either as a subject that personifies it, or as an entire system that provides preferences to some layers of society at the expense of others. The deterioration of the well-being of ordinary members of society contributes to the delegitimation of power, which has long lost its sacred meaning in the eyes of the population.
