Modern political elites: expert opinions. Modern political elite in Russia

With the political bankruptcy of the CPSU in Russia, socio-economic and political mobility increased significantly. If earlier, during the period of domination of the party-state nomenklatura in the USSR, there was a closed system of formation (from a narrow privileged layer), then under the conditions of the reforms that had begun, the old system of formation of elites was basically destroyed. Representatives from the lower social strata of society also began to apply for the newly emerged political "vacancies".

However, the old Soviet nomenclature was in no hurry to give up its positions. She quickly moved away from the ideas of socialism and communism, which until recently she so persistently preached, and, in fact, led the transition of the former Soviet society to the "new" capitalist society. Thus, in most of the former Soviet republics that became independent sovereign states, the presidential post was taken by representatives of the former highest Soviet nomenklatura.

Most of the Russian regions () were also headed by the local Soviet-style party-state elite. And the environment Russian President in the early 90s. 75% consisted of representatives of the former Soviet nomenklatura.

In a separate social group, from whose representatives a new political elite was also formed, one can distinguish the so-called business executives (director's corps), who managed to "privatize" enterprises and entire industries that were previously under their control. formal management. Among them are the so-called former "shady people" who had experience of semi-legal entrepreneurial activity, which, in the conditions of economic liberalization, contributed to their rapid economic growth and political weight.

Along with the old party-state nomenklatura and business executives, the role of the new Russian political elite is also claimed by the most active and ambitious representatives of various strata of society. For example, representatives of the scientific intelligentsia, mainly with economic and legal education, became active participants in state and party building and the main ideological and theoretical developers and conductors of liberal-democratic, market reforms new to post-Soviet Russia.

During the development (transformation) of the political system in the 90s. 20th century and at the beginning of the XXI century. the social composition of the political elite and the share of political influence various groups politicians and political institutions is changing. The dynamics of changes in the political influence of various groups of politicians is presented in Table. 2.

Table 2. Share of political influence in 1993-2002, %

Consider each of the presented in table. 2 group of politicians and try to analyze the causes and dynamics of their transformation.

AT first group politicians include the President of the Russian Federation, his aides, advisers, authorized representatives in the federal districts, heads of the Security Council and other bodies formed under the President of the Russian Federation.

In 1993, the share of the first group was 18.4% of the total volume of political influence. In 1994, there was an increase in the influence of the first group (20.4%). This was due, firstly, to the shooting of the White House and the dispersal of the first Russian parliament in October 1993; secondly, the adoption on December 12, 1993 of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which the President of the Russian Federation is endowed with almost unlimited powers.

Subsequently, until 2000, there was a decline in the influence of the first group of politicians, which in 1999 amounted to only 12.2%. The reasons for such a significant drop are as follows: a) inefficient foreign and domestic policy of the president and his entourage; b) defeat in the first Chechen war (1994-1996); a general drop in the rating of the President of the Russian Federation B. N. Yeltsin (by the end of 1999 it was about 5%).

With the elections in 2000 for the post of President of the Russian Federation V.V. administrative districts(2000); the abolition of direct elections of heads of subjects of the Russian Federation (governors, presidents) and the introduction of the procedure for their presentation (appointment) by the President of the Russian Federation, followed by the approval of the proposed candidacy by the local representative body of power (2004); limiting the political influence of other political groups and institutions (parliament, mass media, "oligarchs", heads of regions).

The second group of politicians- Heads of the Government of the Russian Federation and the main ministries (except for the “siloviki”) traditionally have significant political influence in Russia. The strengthening of the influence of the second group of politicians, as a rule, took place during periods of weakening of the political influence of the first group (1996 and 1999). On the whole, in 2002, the political influence of the elites heading the main executive institutions of power (groups 1, 2, 3) amounted to 54.1%. In subsequent years, their influence continued to grow. A particularly noticeable strengthening of all three of these groups of politicians occurred in November 2005 after significant personnel changes and appointments carried out by the President of the Russian Federation VV Putin. Then the Government of the Russian Federation was strengthened by two additional vice-premiers.

To the third group of politicians - "sipoviki" include the heads of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Russian Emergencies Ministry, the Russian Ministry of Justice, the State Customs Committee, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, various special services, as well as the commanders of military districts. The share of the political influence of the third group ranged from 8% in 1999 to 13.8% in 2000. A significant increase in the influence of the "siloviki" in 1994-1995. explained by the beginning of the first Chechen war. Then there is a significant period (1996-1999) of the decline in the political influence of the “siloviki”, which was largely due to the defeat of the federal troops in Chechnya and the subsequent structural changes and personnel changes in the law enforcement agencies.

The beginning of the second Chechen war (August 1999) and certain successes of the federal troops, as well as the election of V.V. Putin as President of the Russian Federation in 2000, a native of the security forces, significantly increased the share of political influence of the “siloviki”.

In subsequent years, the share of political influence of the "siloviki" slightly decreased (2002 - 11.8%), but on the whole remained at a fairly high level. high level; in 2004-2007 there was an upward trend. During these years, funding for law enforcement agencies was significantly increased, and attention from the state to the problems of "siloviki" increased.

The reasons for the strengthening of the influence of the third group of politicians are seen in the following: the need to combat terrorism; the ruling elite's fear of the threat of a "color revolution"; common military threat from various external forces and the urgent need to strengthen the country's defense capability.

Dynamics of changes in political influence fourth group of politicians - parliament (without party leaders) is quite natural for a state dominated by executive power. A significant share of the political influence of the parliament took place only in 1993, 1994 and 1995, when the State Duma and the Federation Council tried to resist the dictates of the executive branch. In subsequent years, there was a sharp decline in the political influence of the parliament (1996 - 8.3%; 2002 - 5.3%), which can be explained by the following reasons.

Firstly, the subordinate position of the State Duma is already laid down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which the President of the Russian Federation can dissolve the State Duma after it has rejected three times the candidates submitted by the President of the Russian Federation for the post of Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation (Article 111) or if it expresses no confidence in the Government of the Russian Federation (Art. 117). Therefore, before the threat of dissolution, the Duma is ready to approve any bills proposed by the President and the Government of the Russian Federation.

Secondly, most subjects of the Russian Federation are subsidized, i.e. dependent on the executive power of the Russian Federation, and the members delegated by them to the Federation Council are also forced to be “loyal” to the President and the Government of the Russian Federation. In addition, with the strengthening of the vertical of power and the weakening of the political influence of the regions (especially after the introduction of the procedure for the “appointment” of the heads of subjects of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation), the Federation Council finally lost its former political influence.

Thirdly, since the mid-90s. 20th century the Parliament of the Russian Federation has become the scene of violent clashes between various political groups, which, using various ways pressure on legislators, lobby for the adoption (non-adoption) of the laws they need. In order to maintain their status or in pursuit of their own selfish interests, members of parliament often adopt (postpone adoption) laws ordered by this or that pressure group. For example, in 2001, a law on amnesty for convicts with government awards was adopted. As a result, many hundreds of dangerous criminals were released; in December 2003 Art. 52 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which all illegally acquired funds were subject to confiscation. As a result, criminals and corrupt officials no longer fear for the goods they have stolen; at the same time, the adoption of a law on corruption has been delayed for more than 15 years. Such "legislation" does not add authority and political influence to the parliament.

Share of political influence fifth group of politicians- representatives of political parties until the mid-90s. 20th century was very significant (1993 - 10.3%; 1995 - 10.5%). However, in the second half of the 1990s and at the beginning of the XXI century. there was a gradual decline in the political influence of parties. Yes, in December 2004. political parties only 5% of Russians trusted, in September 2005 - 7%". The reason for this phenomenon is seen in the following: parties do not have effective levers of influence on real politics; a decrease in the influence of representative bodies of power, which, as a rule, are formed from the party elite; limitation pluralism in society has significantly reduced the political field for parties in opposition.

The so-called party in power deserves special praise. United Russia". Thanks to a powerful administrative resource in the 2003 parliamentary elections, she won 37% of the vote and became dominant in the State Duma, able to single-handedly accept or reject federal laws. In December 2007, 64.3% of voters voted for United Russia. The basis of "United Russia" is made up of senior government officials, whose number in the ranks is rapidly increasing, as membership in the party becomes almost a prerequisite successful career. So, if in 2003 the party consisted of about 30 heads of subjects of the Russian Federation (presidents, governors), then at the end of 2007 their number increased to 70. Therefore, the political influence of United Russia lies not so much in the party potential, but in the administrative , public resource. This position of the party leaders turns it into an element of the system government controlled rather than a representative political institution.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation legislated the federal structure of Russia. Regional elites were given significant powers to govern their regions. In some subjects of the Russian Federation, there was an increase in separatist sentiments. The federal government, weakened by its internal conflicts, failures in the implementation of reforms and the war in Chechnya, did not pay due attention to regional policy. Therefore, from 1994 to 1999 inclusive, the share of political influence sixth group of politicians - representatives of regional elites can be assessed as significant.

In 2000, the President of the Russian Federation took drastic measures to strengthen the vertical of power:

• plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts are introduced;
• a new procedure for the formation of the Federation Council is established (the heads of the executive and legislative authorities of the regions are no longer included in the Federation Council as its members, but appoint their representatives);
• it provides for the recall of heads and the termination of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government;
• the introduction of direct presidential rule in the regions is envisaged;
• measures are being taken to restore and strengthen the unified legal field throughout the Russian Federation.

All these measures helped to increase the political influence of the executive bodies of the Russian Federation and reduce the influence of regional elites. With the beginning of the application of the procedure for appointing the heads of subjects of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation (2005), the political influence of regional elites has decreased even more.

In the conditions of democratization and publicity since the beginning of the 90s. there has been an increase in political influence seventh group of politicians - representatives of the media, journalists (1993 - 2.3%, 1998 - 5.7%). However, soon there is a sharp decrease in their influence (2001 - 1.7%, 2002 - 0%). The reason for such dynamics is seen in the fact that, simultaneously with the beginning of the strengthening of the vertical of power, the executive bodies of the Russian Federation began a systematic “attack” on independent media and opposition-minded journalists. Television has been particularly hard hit. Thus, from 2000 to 2005, such TV channels as NTV, TV-6, TVS lost their independence (were re-profiled); such popular TV programs as “Results”, “Dolls”, “Freedom of Speech”, “Voice of the People”, “Duel”, “Basic Instinct”, etc. were taken off the air. Many well-known journalists were forced to leave television.

Political influence eighth group of politicians -"Oligarchs" began to appear only in the second half of the 1990s, when, as a result of the privatization of state property, a small group of people close to B. N. Yeltsin acquired billions of dollars and began to directly influence political processes. This was also facilitated by the poor health of the President of the Russian Federation and his dependence on the so-called "family" - an intimate circle of people.

Second half of the 90s. 20th century and beginning of XXI in. many researchers and politicians call the period of oligarchic rule in Russia. It was only in 2004 that the President of the Russian Federation, VV Putin, who was elected for a second term, decided to inflict a significant blow on the "oligarchs", who began to pose a direct threat to him and his team. Initiation of a criminal case against oil company Yukos and the trial of its leaders reduced the political influence of the "oligarchs", forced them to be more loyal to the government (not counting those who immigrated to the West).

Concerning ninth group of politicians - heads of judicial and financial authorities, etc., it should be said that the significant influence of the judiciary in 1993 can be explained by the fact that in a dispute between the President of the Russian Federation and the Russian parliament, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation acted as an arbitrator. A new increase in the political influence of the judiciary since 2000 is due to the fact that with the coming to power of V.V. Putin and his team, a new redistribution of property begins, in which the courts also play a significant role. In addition, the courts began to be used by the authorities to persecute the opposition and remove objectionable candidates and parties from participating in elections.

The growth of the political influence of the financial authorities since 2000 is due to the fact that as a result of high oil prices and the growth of tax collections, financial revenues to the country's budget and the stabilization fund have significantly increased.

When analyzing the political influence of certain members of the elite, the qualitative characteristics of the assessment are important. A positive assessment means that this representative of the elite uses his influence for the benefit of society and the state, and a negative assessment means a negative influence. So, in May 2005, out of the 20 most influential representatives of the ruling elite, the activities of A. A. Kudrin - Minister of Finance, V. Yu. Surkov - Deputy. Head of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, R. A. Abramovich - Governor of Chukotka, A. B. Chubais - Head of RAO UES, B. V. Gryzlov - Speaker of the State Duma, V. V. Ustinov - Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, V. P. Ivanov - Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation was rated with a sign of negative influence.

Ordinary Russian citizens have a slightly different idea of ​​the political influence of elites in Russia. During sociological survey, conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in November 2005, citizens were asked the question: “In whose hands is the real power in Russia?” The answers were distributed as follows: people - 0.8%; Parliament - 2.8%; Russian government - 7.2%; Western circles - 8.7%; "siloviki" - 12.6%; Russian bureaucracy - 15.6%; President - 18.9%; oligarchs - 32.4%.

In the given data, it is noteworthy that the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, who had a very high rating in 2005 (within 65-75%), occupies only the second position (18.9%), oligarchs are far behind (32.4%). It is possible that many Russians have such an opinion due to the fact that oligarchs and natural monopolies continue to increase their capital, and there is almost no real improvement in the lives of ordinary citizens, and most of the promises of the President of the Russian Federation remain only good wishes.

The survey data also indicate that the people are actually removed from power (0.8%). Consequently, the elite rules the country without any control from below, primarily pursuing their own interests, not paying attention to the requests and demands of the people. Therefore, most of the crimes committed by members of the ruling elite go unpunished.

In modern Russia, in fact, a situation has developed when the people and the ruling elite exist, as it were, in parallel worlds without intersecting with each other. One world - the world of unbridled enrichment and defiant luxury; the other world is a world of humiliating poverty and hopelessness. But this state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. A protest potential is maturing in society, which can cause serious social upheavals.

The elite of society in any period of the history of human civilization has played and is playing a primary role in the formation and functioning of the institutions of a single human society.

Roughly speaking, the state elite, as the dominant social stratum (class) of society, is called upon to have a direct impact on the essence, character, capabilities and guidelines of society as a whole.

Where does the "elite of society" in the classical sense begin?

First of all, this is a certain group located at the top of the conditional pyramid of social classes and strata.

Secondly, the elite must have clearly set and predetermined guidelines. A certain and general Idea, Goal, Task - this is what unites the elite, makes it the very "elite of society" that receives a universal and complex tool in the form of that very society for solving and achieving specific tasks and goals (I want to note right away that the ideology of fascism , which has a similar model of building public institutions with the formation of a public elite, is not meant here).

The elite of society and the designer, and the foreman, and the supplier, and the foreman at the construction site. It depends on her competent actions during construction what will eventually come out - the Tower of Babel or the Taj Mahal.

The elite should not give a chaotic character to vital social processes. The elite is a shepherd, the elite is a guiding star, the elite is the bearer of spiritual, moral potential. And it should not dissipate its such original essence.

In reality, there must be explicit and hidden mechanisms for the formation of such an elite. What is the elite of the modern Russian Federation?

First, like any other elite, it is divided into two main groups: the power (political) elite, which exercises direct control over state institutions, as well as over political and social processes; secular elite, which is a potential carrier of spiritual and moral attitudes, setting the main directions spiritual development the rest of society. What is the nature and essence of each of these elites?

The political elite is a special social group, just like any other professional group, which has its own corporate interest and its own corporate consciousness. At the same time, there are no special grounds for considering it a separate class. The political elite is not formed from representatives of all social strata and classes, but only those that can be attributed to the highest politicized stratum of society.

In the modern Russian Federation, such a layer of society is a gigantic bureaucratic apparatus with a well-functioning bureaucratic machine. The modern official is one of the most permanent, "reliable" and sought-after "recruits" in the system of formation of the power elite. In addition to "His Majesty the official," the modern big industrial and raw materials bourgeoisie, large owners of natural monopolies, and a small part of the secular intelligentsia take part in the formation of the power elite. But bureaucratic bureaucracy still plays a decisive role. There is nothing surprising in this fact. Rather, even this is a familiar picture of the structure of any state.

What are the priorities of the power elite of the Russian Federation in concrete actions in practice?

Of course, these are the modern world generally accepted economic "market values". Russia has long been integrated into the circulatory dollar system of the world economy and has taken a not particularly honorable place there. Based on this fact, the real actions of the Russian power elite are being built.

In a simplified language, the main problems that the power elite seeks to solve are the retention of power in the state by any means and harmonious coexistence in the economic sphere with the world system. The rest of the questions are of secondary importance. Thus, it becomes obvious that such an elite does not have clear moral guidelines in the formation of society, the absence of a clear Goal and Idea at the state-national level (this is despite the prevailing rhetoric of "patriots" in the past few years, which is designed to create the illusion of the appearance of a Goals and Ideas), which was mentioned above, in building the institutions of such a society, the vagueness of the criteria and assessments of their activities, the lack of awareness of their pastoral mission. That is, the rest of the social processes that do not concern the two above-mentioned problems, by and large, are left to chance. Those problems that appear from such a spontaneous flow, the power elite solves not in the cause of their occurrence, but in consequence. And he decides with the use of a predominantly wide range of violent actions. Therefore, the structure of state institutions is built on the same principle. So in a brief form it is possible to characterize the power elite of the modern Russian Federation.

The main problems of such a society are the absence of the role of society in direct control over the formation of the power elite, the absence of a conditional institution of "orderlies" who will be able to separate and isolate the "black sheep" and, finally, the absence of real common goals and objectives of the power elite with society. Unfortunately, the created and artificially cultivated consumer society has nothing to do with the national interests of Russia and its future generations.

The secular elite of the modern Russian Federation is also saturated through and through with the spirit of corporatism and opportunism. It is absolutely torn off, "boiling" in its own juice, from the real life of society. However, in general, she is inclined to talk about her "invaluable influence" on various processes in society, pathetically put herself in the forefront of control over such processes, flaunt her "missionary" pseudo-idea.

The secular elite, consisting of the creative intelligentsia, public figures, is, at first glance, a very politically amorphous environment. In fact, the power elite actually imposes such amorphousness on the secular elite. All this is done for the same precise control over the above two problems. After all, if the secular elite takes steps aimed at active participation in the internal political life of the country, then it will certainly attract serious attention to itself and cause all the main social strata of society to wake up from hibernation. And this already calls into question the retention of power by the modern power elite and peaceful coexistence with the world economic system. So it is obvious that the ruling elite tried to forever deprive the secular elite of its original essence, the essence of the "salt of the Russian land", an intercessor for the common people (this was indeed the case in the 19th and 20th centuries).

As for the rest, the secular elite, which does not interfere in the solution of internal political and economic problems, is provided with a wide range of freedoms, a whole system of pretentious and lulling encouragement, honors, attention, etc. The secular elite, like a river that suddenly changed its usual course, created a whole distorted world of abstract reality, "universal values ​​of a civilized community", slutty glamor that smelled of expensive champagne and show business cocaine. All this is presented to the rest of society as a real revelation of new theologians, the ultimate truth.

Thus, in the modern Russian Federation, the root cause of all problems and social disorders is the absence of a real national state-forming elite of society. No, of course, today's elite is also quite a real elite - it manages, disposes, solves problems that are important to it. But this elite has nothing to do with the real interests of Russia, its future generations. But this is the first indicator of the quality and capacity of the elite of society in critical episodes human history. Just until such truly critical moments arose before modern elite RF. I am sure that as soon as such problems appear, such an elite will not be able to solve them.

Ideally, such problems in the future, as I think, should be solved by a group of desperate brave men - "extremists", "intellectual scumbags" headed by a Teacher or Leader, through the accompanying events of dramatically changing reality and the very crisis situation that will proclaim in words and on deed: "I tell you the truth, it must be so!"

One thing must be remembered - the elite, in its original essence, represents the skeleton of any society. Therefore, it should be formed neither according to the clan, nor according to the friendly matchmaker, nor according to any other principles, except for the principle of usefulness and devotion to a common Idea, a common Goal, for which it will not be a pity to sacrifice one's own life.

Instead of a preface:

Disposition

The elite of the country - what is it?

Before the eyes of an astonished public in the country with the widest presidential powers - the United States - President Trump was pushed with his intentions to the farthest corner of the Oval Office. Thus, the enviable stability of the state course of America and the continuity of its policy were demonstrated, regardless of who is in power there.

At the same time, on the opposite side of the globe, the refrain is increasingly heard: “If one (only one) person, the current president of the Russian Federation, leaves politics, then a state change of course can occur with catastrophic consequences for the country. As an example, the extremely unfavorable consequences of the change of Alexander III to Nicholas II, and Stalin to Khrushchev are given ...

It is precisely about this phenomenon - about the amazing dependence of such a huge country as Russia on the specific personality of the ruler - that I would like to talk, and focus not on "Why did it happen?", But try to do it strictly in a practical plane, with an eye to the eternal " What to do?” And not to the government and deputies, but to the most ordinary citizens who do not roam the corridors of power and do not have accounts in offshore jurisdictions.

There are several words, the presence of which in the title of any article guarantees an epic holivar and increased public attention. One such irritant for the entire civil society is the term "elite". No matter how you quote academic definitions, people still associate the word “elite” with the concept of “best” and are very upset if such a term refers to someone who, according to their moral and business criteria, does not correspond to this concept.

The fact that the current self-named elites are the Achilles' heel and the main weakness of the Russian Federation is heard today from every iron. Only the lazy do not talk about the need to form a new elite (new oprichnina), but everyone breaks down on procedures and methods ... Oh, these methods ... Oh, this is the flip side of traditional Russian paternalism ...

Regarding the formation of the elite, civil society generates such proposals that immediately exclude citizens from the number of active participants in the process. “The Supreme Ruler should appoint those we like!”- such a sublimation of various variants of the formation of the elite is present in society today. However:

· Why should the ruler appoint those who please not him, but someone else?

Why should the one appointed by the ruler try to please someone else besides him?

· How should the ruler guess who is really useful, who is liked by the people, and who just walked along Populism Boulevard?

All these questions only exacerbate and emphasize the problem of forming an elite through the subjective opinion of one, even the most senior and responsible person. An elite formed in this way usually suffers from nihilism in relation to predecessors and fear of successors, making it impossible to move forward without shying away and kickbacks.

So, on the one hand, there is a thousand-year-old financial intern having the same thousand-year experience in colonizing countries by non-military methods and an extensive network structure for the formation of adherents and agents of influence. On the other hand, there is the age-old hope for the tsar-father, who must figure out who and how to cope with all this misfortune, select the appropriate personnel and organize the process ...

Are expectations too high? Wouldn’t it be a strategically correct step to support the traditional hierarchical structure of Russian statehood with something networked… Well, if only because hierarchical structures in a fight with network structures are doomed to defeat… meat, but also the intellectual elite, from Lomonosov to Yesenin.

At the beginning of the 21st century, there were no communities or peasants left in Russia, but the challenges and threats remained the same. And it is necessary to respond to them somehow, forming the people's elite, as an alternative to the one that "our Western partners" are actively forming within the Russian world.

How to do it?

The problem of forming an elite, for which one is not ashamed, is undoubtedly recognized and understood by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moreover, he not only accepts, but during all this time he has tried almost all available tools for its formation from above. She should not be ashamed, she should be able to adequately respond to modern challenges and could be an alternative to the “heroes of the 90s”.

The All-Russian competition "Leaders of Russia", the All-Russian People's Front, the Nashi Movement, United Russia - this is a short list of incubators of the new oprichnina, each of which suffers from the same original sin: the right to select the best is given to functionaries who are not at all interested in the appearance of someone better than themselves. And they themselves (in the opinion of the population) are far from being examples of competence, conscientiousness and patriotism. Maybe that's why the success of the listed incubators is not at all a lot?

The logic of objective and natural events taking place in the world macroeconomics is already raising the question point-blank before national politics - the mobilization of civil society or the complete annihilation of the state. The self-preservation instinct does wonders, and it is not at all alien to the celestials, and as soon as they understand that such mobilization is the only way for their personal survival, they become the most enterprising organizers of it.

However. Is it worth it for ordinary citizens who are not vested with power to passively wait for the formation of new versions of United Russia - 2, 3, 4, and so on? What losses will society suffer before the appearance of new Minins and Pozharskys? Is it not worth it to initiate the process of their materialization from below before these losses become catastrophic?

The beauty of civic initiatives is that their authors are not bound by any obligations that any leader is bound by. Unlike public politicians, ordinary citizens can afford an unlimited number of initiatives, finding by trial and error the variant of self-organization that best meets modern challenges and threats.

So I'm moving from common words to the proposals, stipulating that these are only my thoughts, private and imperfect, in the hope that the commentators will definitely add them with their proposals - exemplary and publicly acceptable.

A few days ago, a photo spread around the Russian Internet, where the premium winners of Olympiads in the natural sciences and athletes were compared - naturally not in favor of the “nerds”.

Commentators justified the injustice of this situation with the consequences of these victories, when the records of athletes can bring maximum moral satisfaction to the fans, while the victories of scientists turn into a shield and sword of the state, thanks to which external enemies can click their teeth, but no longer dare to touch ...

For the most part, commentators propose to correct this situation by changing government incentive measures, which are absolutely fair, but not entirely constructive, because ordinary citizens have a very indirect influence on decision-making on government incentive measures. But people's stimulation of young talents, whether organized at the lowest level, can kill two birds with one stone - to support morally and financially representatives of the truly popular elite and unite the citizens themselves.

To make the winner of the international Olympiad in natural sciences a millionaire, it is enough that his talent is appreciated by 10,000 people, each - 100 rubles. Of course, 100 rubles is not a like, you need to tear them away from yourself, but if you considered this possible, then the weight of such a decision would be more significant.

Although the point here is not a hundred rubles, but ten thousand, who have the same opinion that there is someone worthy, for whom the contents of their own wallet are not a pity. This worthy one, for whom money is not a pity, will be that elite. He will know exactly who his personal elite status depends on.

Developing this idea, we can talk to those for whom the people do not feel sorry for a personal plane and a yacht. It's a pity for Roman Abramovich and others like him. But for Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov - it's not a pity at all. The wealth of Russian people is not annoying. The bearers of this wealth are annoyed if they took it from the people without their consent.

If the tradition of material and popular support for its best representatives turns out to be systemic and massive, scientists, doctors, teachers, engineers and representatives of other professions nominated and encouraged in this way will become a real alternative to self-nominated privatizers and their followers.

This may look like a network of the most diverse funds for the constant support of specific talents and transitional bonuses for winners of competitions and olympiads, working exclusively on a voluntary basis and naturally uniting only those who want and have the opportunity to support someone or something.

Just yesterday, the construction of such a system was absolutely unrealistic - only those who constantly loomed in the television box could claim the attention of the public. But today, when the number of people watching TV is steadily declining, and information has become possible to check and recheck online, there is little hope for its objectivity.

Well, if you don’t like it, it won’t work, or it won’t hook you - it doesn’t matter either. So either my proposal is of poor quality, or “the people are not yet ready for debauchery,” or maybe both. The formation of a new elite is inevitable, like the sunrise, and through what mechanisms is the third question. Let's hope that not through armed forces, because we exhausted the limit on revolutions and coups back in the 20th century.

What is the world behind the scenes? Andrey Fursov

How ordinary person join the global elite. Andrey Fursov

Descendants of hermaphrodites - the world's "elite"

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet, you can get on Internet conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all waking up and interested ...

Elitology, as a science, is relatively young. She was born in Europe in late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century. Its founders were famous political scientists of that time: Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto. They were the first to define the political elite, characterized its properties and qualities.

So, G. Mosca compiled a list of qualities that elite representatives should possess in without fail. "Members of the ruling minority invariably possess qualities, real or apparent, that are deeply revered in the society in which they live." He identifies 4 main features of the elite: material superiority, intellectual superiority, moral superiority and organizational skills of the individual. Due to the initial inequality of people, the division into the elite and the masses is inevitable.

V. Pareto defined the elite as people "occupying a high position according to the degree of their influence and political and social power." The promotion of people to the elite is facilitated by the presence of certain qualities in them, for example, the ability to anticipate and express the hidden desires of the masses.

In Russia, the problem of the political elite is dealt with by a limited number of scientists. They, undoubtedly, are Oksana Viktorovna Gaman-Golutvina (“Political Elites of Russia: Milestones of Historical Evolution”) and Olga Viktorovna Kryshtanovskaya (“Anatomy of the Russian Elite”). And, despite the fact that their contribution to the study of this science is quite large, the elites still remain an absolutely unexplored structure to this day.

Elite - This is the ruling group of society, which is the upper stratum of the political class. The elite stands at the top of the state pyramid, controlling the main, strategic resources of power, making decisions public level. The elite not only rules society, but also governs the political class, and also creates such forms of state organization in which its positions are exclusive. The political class forms the elite and at the same time is the source of its replenishment.

The modern political elite of Russia began to take shape in the late 90s, and it has undergone fundamental changes, moving from the “service-nomenklatura” principle of formation to a pluralistic one. The existing modern ruling class has been called "Putin's" elite. The essence of this term is as follows. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, having come to power in 2000 (for the first time), immediately began to eliminate the causes that destroyed the political vertical of power under Boris Yeltsin. Under him, an orderly system of executive power was created, and it also began to return to the center again.

The composition of the modern political elite Russian Federation It is quite diverse, but it is possible to single out several dominant groups in it, in the hands of whose representatives power is now concentrated. Among these associations, bureaucratic groupings, law enforcement agencies, former criminal gangs and others.

If we take into account the ongoing A.M. Starostin survey, it turns out that the authorities in the regions this moment actually belongs to the following groups of people (the survey was called “Who, in your opinion, really owns power in the regions today?”): the president or governor - 74.3%, oligarchs - 30%, criminal structures - 20% and heads of large companies - 11.4%.

Here it is worth touching on the issue of the rating of the Russian elite. The results of a 2011 VTsIOM poll can be taken as a basis, from which it follows that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has the highest rating across the country (58%), which, in turn, means the fundamental trust of citizens. Next with a small margin is Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (42%). The leaders of political factions Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Gennady Zyuganov and Sergei Mironov also proudly entered the top ten.

It should be noted that the political elite of Russia has always been inextricably linked with property issues. If we look back only a few decades, we will see that in the recent past, real power was concentrated in the hands of the most successful businessmen 90s. Access to power was significantly limited for people without sufficient means. Among these political oligarchs we can distinguish Grigory Luchansky (who was one of the first to open a business in the West, a multimillionaire), Boris Berezovsky (professor of mathematics, billionaire, political emigrant), Mikhail Cherny (“king” of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, billionaire), Vladimir Gusinsky (one of the first bankers of Russia , media mogul) and others.

Little has changed since that time for ordinary, even well-educated citizens. The entrance to the political elite remains closed, there is no counter-elite in our country, and, most likely, this is a feature of our time, and not the policy of the state.

"A feature of the political elite is a real opportunity to make or influence the adoption of national decisions." At the moment, the elite of the Russian Federation faces a difficult but doable task. The highest political circles do not agree to put up with the until recently dominant position of the United States on the world stage. Feeling the approval of the population, the Russian political elite is haughty about the threats and sanctions that were issued by the United States. Using the laconic tactics of a calm adversary, the highest circles of Russia are gradually enacting their own measures to punish the US in order to end the existence of a unipolar world. Directions for movement in this vein were given on February 10, 2007.

So after the collapse Soviet Union The Russian political elite has thoroughly revised the socio-economic and political attitudes of their country. The political elite of the Russian Federation has undergone major changes under the influence of modern geopolitical and globalization factors. Responding to the requirements of the era, as well as due to the tasks facing Russia, the composition of the Russian elite underwent changes much more often than in other states. The vertical of power more or less took shape in the early 2000s, when economic growth began in Russia and the political system strengthened.

Comments 6

Interestingly, does the Russian elite have all 4 main features of the elite: material superiority, intellectual superiority, moral superiority and organizational skills of the individual?

Good evening, Mr. Kadyrov!

Thanks for the question. If you are interested in my personal opinion, then I think not. It seems to me that there is not a single elite in the world that would have all these properties, since this is a kind of ideal, which, unfortunately, does not exist in life.

One of the features of the Russian elite is the close connection between position and friendly relations, as well as the material component of the applicant for entry into the elite. Given these facts, it turns out that his intellectual abilities and moral component do not play a significant role.

Sincerely,

Valeria Vladimirovna

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

Historically, the first classical concepts of elites arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are associated with the names of the Italian political scientists Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) and Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), as well as the German political scientist and sociologist Roberg Michels (1876-1936). These are representatives of the so-called machiavellian school(but named after the Italian thinker, philosopher and politician Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are united by the following common features:

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

Machiavellian elite theories have been criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors and anti-liberalism (ignoring the personal freedom of each person), as well as for overestimating the role of leaders, underestimating the activity of the masses and insufficiently considering the evolution of society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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