What is the legitimation of power? Legitimacy and legitimation of political power.

Legitimacy is the confidence of the people that the government will fulfill its obligations; recognition of the authority of power and voluntary submission to it; notion of the correct and expedient use of power, including violence. Legitimate power, as a rule, is able to ensure the stability and development of society without resorting to violence.

It should be emphasized that in the current conditions of development of Kazakhstan, the world community also plays a significant role, which is sensitive to the transformations taking place here, making the provision of various support directly dependent on the extent to which the actions of the authorities comply with the standards of legitimacy adopted by this community, without taking into account internal features of the country. Despite the fact that in countries with different levels of civilized development, there are different approaches to understanding the legitimacy of power. That is why, in our opinion, the political processes have made the power structures of the Republic of Kazakhstan face the need to turn to both traditional and new sources that provide the necessary support for its functioning, such an approach has undoubtedly expanded the political space against which political power is exercised. However, this simultaneously sets the task of immediately developing and adopting a variety of political decisions. If in Western countries institutions of power arose as a natural result of the formation of civil society, then in Kazakhstan the process of democratization begins with the abolition of totalitarian political structures, especially in a historically short period of time. At the same time, the last elections have shown that in a very short time it is possible to accustom the population to the skills of free expression of will, compliance with certain procedures, rules and norms of laws.

The analysis of the problems of legitimation of power in relation to the post-Soviet space, including Kazakhstan, is just beginning, receiving a kind of refraction in the formation of Kazakhstani political institutions. In this regard, there is a need to form such approaches to the study of legitimation problems that highlight the qualitative characteristics of political power, providing the necessary support for its legitimate functioning.

Any political power, even the most reactionary one, strives to appear in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community as effective and legitimate. Therefore, the process of legitimization of power is a matter of special concern for the ruling elite.

One of the most common tricks is to hush up the negative results of one's policy and to "push out" real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Quite often, independent media become an obstacle in such a substitution of negative factors for positive ones.

An illegitimate and inefficient government is afraid to enter into a dialogue with society and with its opponents, so as not to finally show its insolvency. Therefore, it seeks in every way to limit the activities of independent media or put them under its control.

The concept of legitimacy comes from the Latin word legitimus (consistent with the laws, lawful, lawful). legitimacy means the consent of the people with the authorities, a positive attitude towards the current government of the majority of the population, as well as the recognition of its legitimacy by the world community in order to establish official and unofficial relations. The legitimacy of power is determined by its ability to solve the external and internal problems of the country.

The concepts of legitimacy and legality should not be confused. Legality means only the legitimacy of power, and legitimacy is a much deeper concept, meaning that power is accepted by the masses, they agree to obey such power, considering it fair, authoritative, and the existing order is the best for the country. The legitimacy of power implies that the laws are enforced by the main part of society. Legitimate power is based on the recognition of the right of power holders to prescribe norms of behavior for other people. Legitimacy means the recognition by the population of this power, its right to govern, its compliance with people's ideas about justice, the validity of any actions of the authorities, the presence of motivation in order to obey. The lower the level of legitimacy, the more often the authorities will rely on coercion.

The term "legitimacy" arose at the beginning of the 19th century. in France. Initially, it was applied in relation to the power of the king as the only legitimate, legitimate, in contrast to the violent change of power by Napoleon.

Ensuring the legitimacy of power is its legitimization.

Legitimization means the recognition or confirmation of the legality (legitimacy) of any right or authority, including the right of political power to make political decisions and carry out political actions and actions.

The criteria for the legitimacy of power are either the development of democratic procedures (election of power), or the ability of power to maintain stability and order in society, even if it was established as a result of a coup or revolution.

Signs of the legitimacy of power are the conviction of the majority of citizens in the legitimacy of power and the existing system, as well as the freedom of citizens to express their will.

It is possible to identify several types of legitimacy of power :

o power based on the right of succession to the throne. In this case, many necessary actions, unpopular with the people, could be carried out only with the use of violence;
o charismatic tin, when power is based on a specific person, distinguished by strong leadership qualities (charisma) (examples from history: Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, etc.);
o liberal-democratic, or constitutional type of legitimacy, characterized by the free will of citizens, the election of government bodies. Such legitimacy is most common in the modern world;
o ethnic type of legitimacy, involving the formation of power structures on a national basis. This type of legitimacy is formed with the high activity of people of the indigenous nationality, the proclamation of the ideas of the nation state.

Power serves as the basis, object and driving force of politics. The struggle for power is a characteristic feature of the political life of any society, of any era. The concentrated expression of power is the relationship of coercion - execution.

According to M. Weber, there are three types of legitimization:

o traditional - a centuries-old habit of submission (to kings, emperors, princes, etc.);
o charismatic - faith and submission to the authority of some charismatic personality;
o rational - submission to such authority, which is clear, understandable and operates on the basis of democratic laws (legitimacy of the benefits of submission).

The following means of legitimization are used: informing about the goals and objectives of the current policy, its economic feasibility, compliance with the interests of the people, the formation of a national idea, etc. At the same time, the authorities must show that they are able to cope with this. The most universal means of legitimizing power is elections and referendums, which allow people to feel their involvement in power, the dependence of power on the people.

An important instrument of legitimization is the mass media, which allow the manipulation of public consciousness.

The means of legitimizing power depend primarily on the political regime established in a particular state.

There are the following main political regimes: totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic.

Democracy - a political regime based on the method of collective decision-making with equal influence of participants on the outcome of the process or on its essential stages. In order for power to be legitimate under a democratic regime, it must be controlled by society, and access to politics by its individual members must be difficult and as transparent as possible.

There are some basic features of modern democratic regimes. In a truly democratic society, the people actively involved in politics , and such participation is fixed by law. First of all, the participation of citizens in politics is carried out in the form of an electoral process that allows the people to accept or not accept the existing government, to show how legitimate they consider it.

In the implementation of the electoral process, the level of socio-economic development of the state, the high civil culture of the population, which determine the requirements for candidates, are very important.

As the French philosopher, writer and politician Joseph de Maistre argued, every nation is ultimately worthy of its own government. And one more quote: "Democracy cannot rise above the level of the human material of which its voters are composed" (Bernard Shaw).

Another sign of true democracy can be considered a multi-party system, which allows all representatives of social groups, even those who are a minority, to express their point of view about the actions of the authorities. Democracy must be sovereign, i.e. independent of the interference of other states or international organizations.

If the political regime is truly democratic, conditions are created for the free expression of the will of the people, justice and freedom are provided to citizens, then they consider such power to be legitimate.

In Russia, all the main means of legitimizing power are used:

1) legal support for the election of power;
2) political pluralism;
3) local self-government;
4) informatization of society;
5) the interaction of society and government.

Legal support of elective power . Following the results of a national referendum in 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted, in accordance with which the political system in our state was built. The Constitution states that "...Russia is a democratic federal law-governed state...".

The task of the rule of law is to strictly maintain the measure between positive incentives and coercion. This is the politics of domination, the politics of peacemaking, the art of the possible, the creation of reasonable balances between social driving forces and social interests.

A system of normative legal federal and regional acts has been adopted that establishes the principles of electoral law and the electoral process in the Russian Federation.

At the same time, when forming a democratic regime, the norms of international law are also taken into account, and, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the norms of international law take precedence over the norms of domestic law. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules than those provided for by law, then the rules of the international treaty shall apply. It is believed that international law, to a greater extent than national law, reflects the ideas of humanism and justice.

If the result of the referendum had been different, the Russian Federation would not have existed, most likely, the country would have collapsed, like the USSR.

A referendum is a form of direct expression of the will of the citizens of the Russian Federation on the most important issues of state and local significance.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation determines that "the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people."

The people as a source of power exercise it:

o directly through elections and referendums;
o through public authorities;
o through local governments.

Citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of 18 have an active suffrage, with the exception of those who are recognized by the court as incompetent or are held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court verdict.

Democratic, free elections to the bodies of state power, local self-government, as well as a referendum are the highest direct expression of the power belonging to the people. The state guarantees the free expression of the will of citizens of the Russian Federation in elections and referendums, the protection of democratic principles and norms of the electoral law and the right to participate in a referendum.

Measures of administrative and criminal liability for violations of the norms of the electoral law are envisaged. For example, administrative offenses include: violation of the right of citizens to familiarize themselves with the list of voters; interference in the work of election commissions; failure to comply with the decision of the election commission; violation of the procedure for providing information about voters; violation of the established procedure for publishing documents related to the preparation and conduct of elections; violation of the rights of a member of an election commission, an observer, a foreign (international) observer, an authorized representative of a registered candidate, an electoral association (bloc), a representative of the mass media; violation of the rules of pre-election campaigning; bribing voters; non-provision or non-publication of a report, information on the receipt and expenditure of funds for the preparation and conduct of elections; etc.

Measures of criminal liability are provided for such offenses as obstruction of the exercise of electoral rights or the work of election commissions; falsification of election documents or incorrect counting of votes; etc.

Political pluralism implies a variety of political views and organizations, free participation of citizens in political life, competition between various political forces in the struggle for access to power.

According to the Constitution, political diversity and a multi-party system are recognized in the Russian Federation. This means that various public political associations can be created, registered and carry out their activities in Russia on the grounds determined by law.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation states that public associations are equal before the law. The equality of public associations before the law is manifested in the equality of the requirements of the state to the charters of public associations. In Russia, in addition to equality before the law, the equality of public associations among themselves is fixed. This presupposes equality of rights and obligations of public associations in both public and economic activities.

The principle of a multi-party system, enshrined in the Constitution, assumes that each party, as a kind of public association, expressing the political will of its members, seeks to participate in the formation of state authorities and local self-government bodies.

Each party has the right to adopt program documents, which are then published to the public, to nominate candidates for deputies and other elective positions. But, participating in elections, the party cannot receive financial support from foreign states, organizations and citizens. In accordance with the Federal Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-FZ "On Political Parties", citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to create political parties on a voluntary basis in accordance with their convictions, to join political parties or to refrain from joining political parties, to participate in the activities of political parties in accordance with their statutes, as well as to leave political parties without hindrance. The creation and activities of political parties whose goals or actions are aimed at carrying out extremist activities are prohibited.

Local self-government should contribute to the approximation of public authorities to the population, the formation of civil society in our country. In Russia, the formation of local self-government (since the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), its legislative foundations have been created, and extensive experience in the work of municipalities has been accumulated. The formation of local self-government brings Russia closer to a truly democratic society, because it makes it possible to get away from the monocentric model of power organization traditional for Russia.

The interaction of society and government is provided by a variety of means. The Public Chamber of the Russian Federation was established in accordance with Federal Law No. 32-F3 of April 4, 2005 "On the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation". According to this law, the Public Chamber is elected every two years and carries out interaction of citizens with state authorities and local self-government in order to take into account the needs and interests of citizens, protect their rights and freedoms in the formation and implementation of state policy, as well as in order to exercise public control over the activities of bodies authorities. The Public Chamber provides support to non-profit organizations in Russia. In 2009, due to amendments to the legislation, a procedure was established in accordance with which all socially significant bills are subject to mandatory examination by the Public Chamber.

The study of public opinion has been organized, for example, the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) has been created, sociological surveys are regularly conducted, including on problems of attitude towards the current government, etc.

Informatization of society. In today's world, information is practically the main source of power. Control over information resources and flows allows the authorities to successfully pursue their policies. However, direct control is no longer possible, so often the authorities themselves produce certain information and its interpretation.

In accordance with the principles of a democratic society, citizens have the right to access information resources, including information about the activities of government bodies. No less important is the organization of feedback between the population and the authorities. Mass media play an important role in informatization of society.

Thus, in general, a democratic regime is being created in the Russian Federation. At the same time, the problem of legitimizing power exists due to the large scale of corruption, the facts of excessive administration, bureaucracy, the fear of a large part of state and municipal employees of openness and transparency in their work, isolation from the needs of citizens, etc. High social differentiation remains, the standard of living of a fairly large part population is extremely low. Local self-government is still extremely poorly developed. The apoliticality of the population, its low legal culture are noted.

Without legitimate power, it will not be possible to create a sovereign democracy, in which both the system of power and its actions are shaped by Russian citizens.

Any normative legal acts, including laws, regulate social relations, making them permitted or transferring them to the category of offenses. Only a body that has gone through the process of legitimizing power can determine such powers for them. This article will talk about what this phenomenon implies and why it is, in fact, necessary, and whether it is necessary at all.

What does this concept imply?

How to explain the concept of "legitimate power"? In professional language, this phenomenon fixes the legitimacy of the emergence of any formation or action. Legalization is provided by the main law of the country - the Constitution. It is this legal act that is the basis for the formation of the social and state system. It determines the structure of organs, as well as the methods in relation to which their activities are built. The constitution contributes to the legitimization of political power. That is, both the state body itself and its activities have a legal basis.

In addition to the Constitution, there are a number of other legal acts that make political power and its powers legalized. These include the following official written documents:

laws that may regulate the work of the president, parliament, judiciary and other bodies;
presidential decrees;
government regulations;
court decisions.

What is the essence of this phenomenon?

The legitimization of power, not only as a practical process, but also as a theoretical concept, is very often found in modern political scientific works. It is the subject of controversy and discussion in various circles. In general, the majority give it the following characteristic: formal legality, which has legal support in the form of a special legal act. But in a similar way, the legitimation of political power is defined in political and legal sense.

However, this phenomenon is rather ambiguous. It also has a psychological connotation. In the minds of people there is such a principle that considers everything that is fixed by power structures to be positive. That is, a person agrees with the legitimacy of the behavior of state bodies, regardless of whether it is such or not. That is why the population feels the power and superiority of government structures and is ready to actually voluntarily obey any order. Thus, such a connection, which has been established between the inhabitants of the state and its rulers, is defined by psychology as the legalization and legitimization of state power. People at a subconscious level recognize any direction of the authorities as fair and legitimate. Thus, in a sense, legitimacy refers to the respect and authority of the government among the citizens of the state. This suggests that legally recognizing power is not enough; it is also important to establish contact with the people by complying with value concepts and guidelines.

How is legitimacy reflected in the position in society?

It is believed that the legitimacy and legitimization of power contribute to the stabilization of society. People are re-evaluating their priorities. It is these concepts that guarantee further development and progress within the state. They are so strong in their effect and influence on popular sentiment that the comprehensive rehabilitation of the economic and political sector simply cannot compete.

The legitimacy and legitimation of political power determine and fix a fairly wide range of sources of emergence and emerging forms. At the moment, political science distinguishes three subjects in relation to which these processes are carried out. These include:

civil society;
power structures;
foreign political forces.

It is the moods of the first subject that determine the role of the government in the life of society. Thanks to the approving look of the majority of the inhabitants of the state, one can speak of prosperity and a stable situation both in the country and in the governing apparatus itself. In order to form a positive image of the ruling elite, it needs to show itself positively in solving any social problems. Only attention and interest in the life of ordinary people can cause support from citizens. Recognition of the legitimacy of the government is explained by various factors. These include relations between different segments of the population, ideological and political views, mentality, historical traditions and moral values. The correct complex influence on the social mechanism can ensure the authority of the governing apparatus among the masses.

What is traditional legitimacy?

For the first time, the concept of "legitimation of state power" was singled out and formulated by Max Weber. It was this German sociologist who put forward the idea that the causes of this phenomenon are not always similar. This allows us to conclude that the process is heterogeneous. Weber also identified (according to a number of classification features) three types of the legitimization phenomenon. The main reason for this separation is the motivation of submission. This allocation of species is relevant today and is recognized in political science.

The first type is called the traditional legitimation of power. This is a classic version of legitimizing the actions of the state apparatus, since the action is conditioned by the need to subordinate the people to power. As a result of established customs, people develop a habit, a need to obey political institutions.

This type of legitimation is inherent in powers with a hereditary type of government, that is, where the monarch is at the head. This is due to the values developed in the process of historical events. The personality in the face of the ruler has a steady and undeniable authority. The image of the monarch determines all his actions as lawful and fair. The advantage of this type of statehood is a high level of stability and sustainability of society. At this stage, there is practically no such type of legitimation in its pure form. It acts, as a rule, combined. The traditional campaign is supported by modern social institutions, apparatuses and "clerical domination".

What is rational legitimacy?

Also, the legitimation of power can have a more reasonable basis. In this case, the determining factors are not emotions and beliefs, but common sense. Rational legitimacy, or in other words - democratic, is formed through the recognition by the masses of the correctness of the decisions taken by the state apparatus. Only, unlike the previous type, people are guided not by blind convictions directed in favor of their leader, but by a real understanding of affairs. Power structures organize a system consisting of generally accepted rules of conduct. The principle of its operation is to realize the goals of the government through the implementation of these rules by the people.

The basis of all foundations in such a state is law. Legitimation of this type of power is typical for a society with a more complex structural formation. It is according to the law that power is exercised on a legal basis. This determines the people's appreciation and authority not of a specifically identified person who has concentrated power in his hands, but of the entire structure of the state apparatus.

What determines legitimacy based on faith in the leader?

The charismatic way of legalization (legitimate power) is when the recognition of any actions of the ruling structure is due to the personal qualities of the leader. Outstanding personalities have always been able to establish contact with the masses. The general image of the ruler is transferred to the entire current system of power. Most often, in this case, people unconditionally believe the words and actions of their ideological inspirer. The strong character of a person forms an emotional upsurge among the population. A leader can suppress unrest in society with just one word or, conversely, cause active movements.

If you look into history, you can see that, according to the method of legitimation, the authorities single out leadership as the main way to manipulate the people during the period of revolutionary moods. At this time, it is quite easy to influence citizens, since an emotional outburst causes instability in the psychology of society. People, as a rule, do not trust the past political order. Principles, ideology, norms and values are changing. This period is a very fertile ground for political games. The emergence of a new charismatic leader will certainly inspire people with faith in a brighter future, which raises his authority in the eyes of the people.

Various periods of history were saturated with such leaders. Among them are a huge number of historical figures, leaders, heroes and prophets. But most often such an image is created artificially. Basically, the basis of its creation is the active work of the media. People simply impose a leader. This can be done very easily, since there is practically nothing for the people to rely on. The values built up in the process of history have been betrayed and broken; there are no existing results yet. Innovations do not bear fruit, but only make them tighten their belts even tighter. But everything around only inspires faith in the changes that the new ruler will provide.

According to Weber himself, it is this type that is defined as absolute legitimacy. He explained this by the fact that the personal qualities of a leader make him a superman. A similar phenomenon can be tolerated in democratic states. But in the classical version, this is a process inherent in a totalitarian and authoritarian regime.

What other notions of legitimacy exist?

In the course of the emergence of new political processes in history, ways of legitimizing power were also formed, which had a completely different character than that defined by Weber. Newly emerging concepts suggested that the concept could have a broader meaning. That is, not only power itself as a substance, but also the totality of political institutions became the object of legitimacy.

The American representative of political science S. Lipset tried to form a new definition of this phenomenon. He characterized the legitimacy of power as the belief of the masses that the state apparatus acts fairly, lawfully and in the interests of society. However, the state apparatus itself was understood as political institutions. His other colleague D. Easton gave the definition of "legitimacy" from the standpoint of moral values. That is, the government itself must act in such a way that it gives results that correspond to the idea of the people themselves about honesty, correctness and justice. In this case, the political scientist implies the following ways of legitimizing power: ideology, political regime and political leadership. With regard to these sources, a certain classification feature can also be distinguished. According to the method of legitimation of power, there are:

ideological;
structural;
personal.

How does D. Easton classify legitimacy?

Types of legitimation of power are represented by three categories. The first is called ideological. The correctness of decisions made by the state apparatus is due to the belief in a stable set of values. The strength of legitimacy in this case is determined by the support of the masses. That is, the more citizens share the ideology and course of the government, the more lawful and legitimate the government is considered.

The second type is structural legitimacy. It bears a resemblance to Weber's rational legitimacy. Here, too, people are guided not by feelings and beliefs, but by reason. The people understand and approve of the correct distribution of responsibilities in the government structure. The way in which society lives is subject to a system based on legal norms.

Similarly, analogies can be drawn between other species. For example, such types of leadership in terms of the way of legitimizing power, such as charismatic and personal, have a common essence. Both are based on unquestioning faith in the authority of the leader. The level of legitimacy of his actions is determined by individual abilities and the ability of the ruler to best manage his personal qualities. The difference between the concepts of Weber and Easton is that, according to the former, a truly charismatic person can be a leader. Even if her qualities are too exaggerated by the media, they are present anyway. It is impossible to reach such a level without possessing anything of the kind. According to Easton's theory, everything is quite the opposite - a ruler can be a person who does not have any specific abilities. There are quite a lot of examples in history when nothing outstanding personalities receive the active support of the general population.

What is D. Betham's theory?

D. Betham also singled out certain types of legitimation of power. His concept, as it were, sums up what was said by both D. Easton and M. Weber. But, in his opinion, this process is carried out in three stages:

The first level is the formation of a set of rules according to which a person can receive and send power.
The second level consists of persuasion or coercion of both the state apparatus and the masses. The main direction in relation to which further manipulations are built is the principles of the functioning of the political system.
At the third stage, citizens convinced of the legitimacy and justice of the ruling structures actively agree with the actions of the government.

D. Betham believed that the absoluteness of this process can be expressed in the established interaction between the meaning of the political game, positive reviews of its content and the formed political system. The latter expresses a voluntary desire to preserve it.

What does delegitimization mean?

Opposite, but no less important, is the notion of delegitimization. The action denoted by this term is the final stage in the life cycle of power and denotes the loss of trust and deprivation of influence on society.

This process occurs for completely different reasons. It can be preceded by either one event or a combination of them. Problems with faith in the government also arise when there is discord in the state apparatus itself. As they say, the fish rots from the head, and if the authorities cannot divide the sphere of interests, then legitimacy will also soon come to an end. The reason for the difficulties that have arisen may be the contradiction between democratic methods of influencing society and forceful methods. An attempt to aggressively influence the media may result in the loss of the support of the masses. Also, unrest among the population easily arises in the absence of protective mechanisms. A high level of corruption and bureaucratization can have an additional impact on the emergence of a process of delegitimization. Phenomena such as nationalism, separatism and racial strife are factors that ensure the shaking of the positions of the ruling structures.

Political science even defines such a thing as a “crisis of legitimacy”. It implies a period of time during which society loses faith in the honesty, justice and legitimacy of actions committed by state bodies within their powers. The political system is simply not perceived by the people. If the hopes placed on the state apparatus by the citizens of the country are not justified over time, then support from them should not be expected either.

To overcome the crisis, the government needs to have constantly established contact with the population. And it is necessary to take into account the opinion of all segments of society. To do this, it is necessary to carry out timely informing about the goals and directions of the authorities' activities. It is necessary to demonstrate to people that any issues can be resolved legally, without violence. The state structures themselves must also be organized. The political game must be conducted without prejudice to the rights of any of its participants. In society, it is necessary to carry out constant propaganda of democratic values.

Legitimacy is a term that is widely used in modern political science and political practice. Sometimes it is interpreted extremely broadly, identifying it with formal legal legality. However, this is not always the case. From a psychological point of view, the legitimacy of power really means legality, but legality is subjective. For one reason or another, people can give a positive assessment to political institutions that concentrate power in themselves, recognize their right to make managerial decisions and be ready to voluntarily obey them. This relationship between power and people is called legitimacy. Legitimate power is assessed by the people who recognize it as lawful and fair. Legitimacy also means the presence of authority in power, the correspondence of this power to the basic value orientations of the majority of citizens.

The term "legitimacy" in its current meaning was introduced into scientific circulation by the German sociologist Max Weber. Although he did not specifically deal with the problems of social or political psychology, his methodology for identifying types of legitimate domination reveals a pronounced psychological approach. The characterization of the types of legitimacy of power by M. Weber is based on his own concept of the types of social action. In the most general terms, “social action” is the features, methods of people's behavior in various spheres of life, the result of which are all social relations and institutions. M. Weber singled out several types of social action, depending on what motives determine this action.

The scientist considered purposeful rational action to be the highest type of social action. In other words, an action that is motivated solely by conscious, rational interests. It contains a predetermined goal and the path to its achievement is developed with the help of rational tools - mathematical, technical, natural - and social science knowledge, as well as legal norms. Value-rational social action is carried out on the basis of a conscious belief in certain ethical, aesthetic or religious ideals. M. Weber associated the third type of social action exclusively with emotional-sensory motivation and called it "affective". Finally, the sociologist characterized the fourth type of social action as "traditional", where the main motive is habit, the unconscious adherence to once and for all established stereotypes of behavior.

Based on the above types of social action, M. Weber identified three types of legitimate domination. The first type was called them "legal". Only in this type do legitimacy and formal legality coincide. The main motive for submission to power is interest, and it is based on goal-oriented social action. In a political system built on the legal type of legitimacy, authorities are subject not to any particular person, but to established laws, and not only those citizens who are governed, but also those who are called upon to govern (the ruling elite, the bureaucratic apparatus, consisting of their specially trained officials). The formal legal principle is decisive here. As long as everything is carried out in accordance with the law, the system retains its full legitimacy. The legal-rational type of legitimate domination cannot do without specially trained, competent officials, who, according to Weber, constitute a rational bureaucracy. Rational bureaucracy implies such a technology and structure of public administration, in which the entire management process is divided into separate impersonal operations that require professional knowledge, skills and experience.

An official of this type of government must meet the following criteria: 1) be personally free and obey only his official duty, and not his own or other people's interests; 2) to occupy a clearly defined place in the service hierarchy; 3) have a certain competence (in this case, know your rights and obligations firmly); 4) work on a contract basis in conditions of free choice; 5) hold a position in accordance with their professional qualifications; 6) receive regular monetary remuneration in accordance with the position held; 7) to be able to rise up the steps of the service hierarchy, depending on the effectiveness of their activities; 8) consider their service as the main profession; 9) not to use his official position and the opportunities arising from it for personal purposes; 10) obey uniform service discipline for all.

However, M. Weber himself understood that in real life the bureaucratic method of management differs from the ideal type. Political practice shows many examples of the transformation of officials into a closed caste, acting not in the interests of society, but mainly for personal purposes. Therefore, to neutralize the negative consequences of the bureaucratization of power and administration, various forms of control over the activities of officials by political institutions and public opinion are used.

Another type of legitimate domination, in which M. Weber saw the motivation for submission in the "moral habit of certain behavior", he called "traditional". This type of domination is based on the belief in the legitimacy and even the sacredness of ancient orders and authorities and is associated with traditional social action. Based on the generalization of the historical experience of a number of countries, Weber identifies two forms of traditional legitimate domination: patriarchal and class. The patriarchal form of organization of traditional power took place, according to Weber, in Byzantium. It is characterized by relations of personal dependence in the apparatus of state administration. Although rather high positions can be occupied by both people from the social lower classes, including yesterday's slaves, and the closest relatives of the emperor himself, they are all disenfranchised servants of the latter. Examples of estate forms, according to Weber's views, can be found in the feudal states of Western Europe. Here the mechanism of power is more impersonal. The lower levels of the power hierarchy have greater autonomy, and the hierarchy itself is based on the principles of class affiliation and class honor. This form of traditional domination creates conditions for the formation of an aristocracy, to some extent limiting the power of the monarch.

With the traditional type of legitimate domination, and especially with its patriarchal form, the role of formal law is extremely low and, therefore, there is no possibility to act "regardless of persons." Personal loyalty and loyalty to the boss is much more important than knowledge and competence. Therefore, it is personal devotion that is an important condition for moving up the career ladder.

The third type of legitimate domination was defined as "charismatic". Under the charisma (divine gift), M. Weber understood some extraordinary abilities bestowed on some individuals and distinguishing them from other people. The sociologist attributed the ability of magical influence on others, a prophetic gift, outstanding strength of mind and words to charismatic qualities. Charisma, according to Weber, is possessed by heroes, great generals, magicians, prophets and seers, brilliant artists, prominent politicians and, finally, the founders of world religions, such as Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed. The charismatic type of legitimate domination is characterized by a completely different motivation for submission than the traditional one. If, with traditional legitimacy, motivation is based on habit, attachment to the ordinary, once and for all wound up, then with charismatic legitimacy, it is associated with a strong impact on the psyche and consciousness of people of something new, bright, extraordinary. Here we are talking about the affective type of social action. The source of attachment to a charismatic ruler, the readiness to follow his instructions, is not tradition and formal legal norms, but emotionally colored personal devotion to him and faith in the charisma of this person. Therefore, M. Weber believed, a charismatic leader must constantly prove the existence of this very charisma, otherwise his power may hang in the air.

The charismatic type differs from the legal-rational and traditional types of legitimate domination by the absence of clear rules and norms, decisions in this case are made from irrational motives. In real political practice, the leader's charisma may not be associated with any special gift, but is the result of an uncritical perception of his image by supporters and followers. Often such charisma arises from skillful demagogy and populism. A politician who came to power on the basis of such "artificial" charisma may soon disappoint his followers with his inability to fulfill his promises, to realize the often utopian wishes of his followers. M. Weber noted that the leader, who failed to prove his charisma, begins to lose it. To retain power, such a leader has no choice but to resort to force and repression. This is the mechanism by which authoritarian dictatorships emerge in many Third World countries. Similar examples could be seen in the post-Soviet space (Georgia under Gamsakhurdia).

It is easy to see that the number of types of social action and types of legitimate domination by M. Weber is not the same. Value-rational social action does not have a corresponding type of legitimacy. Modern concepts of legitimacy eliminate this discrepancy.

In the process of development of political science, ideas about legitimacy also developed. As an object of legitimacy, they began to consider not only power as a substance, but also its institutional expression in the form of a political system as a whole. According to the well-known American political scientist S. Lipset, the concept of "legitimacy" means the ability of a system to generate and maintain the belief of the people that its political institutions are in the best interests of society. Another equally well-known American political scientist D. Easton considers such a power or political system as legitimate, which corresponds to the moral principles of individuals, their own ideas about what is fair or right in the field of politics. D. Easton names ideology, political regime and political leadership as sources of legitimacy. Based on this, he identifies three types of legitimacy: ideological, structural and personal.

Ideological legitimacy is based on the conviction of citizens in the correctness of those ideological values on which the political regime and the institutions representing it are based. The more citizens share the values and norms characteristic of a given political regime, the greater the degree of legitimacy it possesses and, conversely, the fewer such citizens, the lower the level of legitimacy. Structural legitimacy is based on the conviction of citizens in the optimality of the structure of the institutions of the political system and the functions they perform, on confidence in the correct distribution of roles in power structures and the approval of the legal norms on which this system is based. It is easy to see that Easton's structural legitimacy is similar to Max Weber's legal-rational legitimacy. Similarly, one can draw an analogy between personal legitimacy according to D. Easton and charismatic legitimacy according to M. Weber. Personal legitimacy, according to Easton, is based on the belief of individuals in the personal qualities of political leaders, on confidence in their ability to best manage their power. But if "charisma", Weber believed, is inherent only in outstanding historical figures, then Easton proceeded from the fact that political leaders who do not really have special qualities can receive mass support. As real political practice shows, the authorities are able to achieve very ordinary personalities and they can enjoy fairly stable and broad support from the population and, therefore, have personal legitimacy.

A kind of unification of the normative concept of M. Weber and the empirical concept of D. Easton is the concept of D. Betham. He believes that the legitimization of power is carried out simultaneously at three levels:

The first of these is formed by the rules for receiving and exercising power.

The second level is the beliefs of the rulers and the ruled regarding the functioning of the political system.

The third level is the active consent of the governed, expressed in specific political actions. It is possible to speak about the full legitimacy of power only when there is a connection between the content of the rules of the political game, their positive assessment and the political behavior that grows out of them on the side of the political system, expressing the will to preserve the system in its unchanged foundations.

In modern political science, the concept of the legitimacy of the political power of the French political scientist J. Chabot has become famous. He defines legitimacy as the adequacy of the real or supposed qualities of the rulers (as well as those who intend to become them) to the implied or explicit consent of the governed. J. Chabot distinguishes four types of legitimacy: democratic, ideological, technocratic and ontological. Democratic legitimacy is inherent in political systems that operate on the basis of basic democratic principles: collective decision-making, consideration of the will of the majority, observance of human rights and freedoms. Democratic legitimacy is relative and must be complemented by other types of legitimacy. First of all, it is technocratic legitimacy, understood by Chabot as the degree of professionalism and competence of those who are in power and make decisions. It is not enough for a leader to just win the support of voters, it is necessary to justify the trust placed by effective management activities. Shabot understands ideological legitimacy in much the same way as Easton, linking it to the functioning of the Soviet and other totalitarian regimes.

The concept of ontological legitimacy by J. Chabot is the most difficult to perceive. The political scientist pointed out that in this case “we are talking about identifying the correspondence of political power to the objective order inscribed in human and social reality, the continuation of the order established in cosmic extrahuman reality.” Here the idea is expressed that the existence of any political system is justified as long as it does not conflict with the most universal laws of the development of nature and society.

With all the variety of concepts of the legitimacy of power, they all have many similar aspects. The differences between them are explained by the complexity of the very phenomenon of legitimacy.

Along with the theoretical problem of the legitimacy of political power, there is a practical problem of its legitimation, that is, the acquisition of legitimacy in the eyes of society. The legitimization of power in some cases may coincide with legalization - the adoption of fundamental legal acts, primarily constitutions. The legitimation mechanism can be elections or referendums, which reveal the level of popular support for leaders, parties, institutions, regulations or decisions. The ideological legitimation of power is necessary not only in totalitarian systems, the leaders of the most democratic countries also rely on certain ideological values to justify their actions and decisions.

One of the fundamental differences of a democratic system is that in it power cannot be appropriated, but only "acquired" by winning competitive elections. In other words, at the personal level, the legitimation of power is subject to cyclic renewal (confirmation).

In non-democratic systems, the role of a factor that legitimizes the rules for gaining power is played by an ideology based on both values and group interests that justify the rejection of political rivalry as such and, thus, do not require confirmation of power in free elections. The consequence of the rejection of competitive elections is the phenomenon of forced support for the regime, which consists in the impossibility of openly expressing rejection of a particular group of rulers without simultaneously expressing doubts about the ideology and rejecting the basic rules of the political game. The ruled are faced with an alternative: either recognition of the full legitimacy of power, or its complete illegitimacy.

In the countries of real socialism, the legitimization of power was carried out primarily ideologically (hence the name of these regimes - ideocratic). However, over time, the ruling communist parties were also forced to look for other arguments (for example, successes in the economy) to justify their dominance, which in principle contradicted the foundations of the existing political system and undermined it from within.

Political power, especially at a high level, is often personified. Therefore, in order to maintain the authority and, consequently, the legitimacy of power, it is necessary to maintain and strengthen the authority of the political leaders representing it. In authoritarian, totalitarian regimes, charismatic or, to use Easton's terminology, personal legitimation can take the form of a "cult of personality," but more civilized examples of such legitimation are also observed in a democracy. To legitimize power, the effectiveness of the decisions and actions of those who possess it is of great importance. A political regime that does not have sufficient legitimacy can gain legitimacy if it contributes to the successful solution of the problems facing society and, thereby, meeting the needs and aspirations of the majority of the population.

The following signs can be considered as empirical indicators of the degree of legitimacy of power:

The level of coercion used by the authorities to implement their policies (legitimate authorities can do without direct violence at all, illegitimate authorities often simply “sit on bayonets”).
The presence or absence of attempts to unlawfully overthrow a given government or political leader.
The presence or absence of mass actions of civil disobedience, as well as the strength of such disobedience.
The results of elections, referendums, as well as data from sociological studies, if the latter are reliable.
The degree of corruption in power, etc.

Along with the process of legitimation of power in political practice, the opposite process can also occur - the delegitimization of power, that is, the loss of those factors that determined its legitimacy. The delegitimization of power can be the result of a number of reasons: 1) a consequence of the contradiction between the selfish aspirations of the ruling elite and the ideological values that dominate in a given society; 2) a consequence of the contradiction between officially proclaimed democratic principles and real political practice related to the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the population, pressure on the media, persecution of the opposition; 3) a consequence of the increase in the inefficiency of the bureaucratic apparatus and its increased corruption; 4) a consequence of a split within the ruling elite due to the loss of confidence in the justification of its claims to power; 5) a consequence of the conflict between the branches of government. A crisis of legitimacy can also occur when the political system ceases to accept the demands of the main social groups, when it lacks or ceases to function mechanisms that protect the interests of the broad masses of the people.

The processes of legitimation and delegitimization of power can be illustrated by examples from the history of the communist political regime in our country. As for any other totalitarian regime, ideological legitimacy was of particular importance for the power of the Bolshevik Party in Russia. In the process of legitimizing the communist regime, two main components can be found. The first is connected with the gradual displacement of all views that are alien to the communist ideology, the second is with the adaptation of the communist ideology itself to the realities and traditions of Russian society. The eradication of dissent began on the second day after the October Revolution, but continued for quite a long time, since a whole range of related tasks had to be solved. It was necessary to eliminate the carriers of ideological currents alien to "Marxism-Leninism", and at the same time to form a new ideological and propaganda apparatus. It took at least two decades to solve this problem. However, this alone would not be enough to establish total ideological control over society. From the point of view of the regime, it was also necessary to establish an information blockade, to turn the USSR into an information-closed society isolated from the rest of the world. Gradually, Soviet people more and more fenced off not only from the outside world, but also from their past.

Only ideology could not be the only legitimizing factor of the communist regime in the USSR for so long. It was supported by factors of a different order. We can also talk about a certain economic efficiency of this regime. The tasks of industrial modernization were solved in technical, technological and socio-cultural terms. Agrarian Russia turned into a nuclear-missile superpower, launched the first artificial Earth satellite and carried out the first manned flight into space. It should not be forgotten that, starting from the mid-1950s, there was a steady upward trend in the level of material well-being of the majority of the population of the Soviet Union, which could also use a wide range of free social services, albeit of low quality by world standards.

The improvement of the life of the Soviet people was a good addition to the promise of universal happiness in a "bright future" - under communism. And the very image of this bright future was an important element of the ideological doctrine and the justification of all the difficulties and troubles of everyday life, legitimizing any actions of the authorities. It was the ideology for the Soviet society that was the most integrating and legitimizing force for the existing power.

Ideological erosion became a reality in full measure already during the leadership of the country by Leonid Brezhnev. His reign was marked, on the one hand, by unprecedented achievements, but at the same time by growing disillusionment with former ideals and values. First of all, the notions of a "bright future" - communism, which did not come on the promised dates, turned out to be discredited, and the party leadership avoided direct explanations with the people about this. In addition, a real increase in the standard of living was not always felt psychologically. Often, on the contrary, dissatisfaction with their financial situation increased due to the continued shortage of many goods and services. With the aggravation of socio-economic problems, degradation in many areas of public life has intensified. Corruption and the disintegration of the party-state apparatus began to be clearly revealed. And all-encompassing corruption, according to the French sociologist M. Dogan, is a symptom of the delegitimization of the regime. But it was still far from its complete delegitimization in the Soviet Union, especially since society for the most part was in the dark about the real problems facing it.

At the beginning of "perestroika", the majority of Soviet society was not yet ready for serious and systemic changes. M. Gorbachev faced not only the resistance of a part of the conservative apparatus, but also the inertia of the mass consciousness as a whole. Therefore, the help of the mass media was needed, which received, albeit limited "from above", the freedom to criticize the existing realities in order to "stir up" society. But the so-called "glasnost" was the first stone that fell into the abyss and dragged along the entire system of myths on which the dominant ideology rested. The process of degradation of ideology went on in previous years, but it collapsed, unable to withstand the "pressure drop" caused by the opening of external and internal ideological gateways. In parallel with the rapid erosion of the ideological foundation of the legitimacy of communist power, the economic inefficiency of the system was also exposed. As a result of delegitimization, the former economic and political system collapsed, opening a new period in the development of our country.

The process of legitimizing power in the new Russia after the collapse of the communist regime and the collapse of the USSR was not easy. The adoption of normative acts necessary in the new conditions and, above all, the Constitution was delayed. This led to a political crisis. There was a situation when formal legality (legality) and legitimacy not only did not coincide, but in some points were in conflict with each other. So it was in September-October 1993 during the confrontation between President Yeltsin and the majority of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. B. Yeltsin by that time had not yet completely lost his "charisma", acquired by him in the fight against the previous system, including populist methods. In the early years of the reforms, Yeltsin's "charisma" was almost the only factor that legitimized the changes that were taking place and the newly emerging attitudes and institutions. As Yeltsin's popularity waned, the authorities more and more diligently looked for other means of legitimation. For example, the ideological factor was involved. If in the early 90s there were references to liberal values, then prominent representatives of the ruling regime used patriotic slogans and rhetoric borrowed from the opposition.

In recent years, as a result of economic stabilization, improvement of legal and political mechanisms, prerequisites have arisen for the establishment of a democratic type of legitimacy. But only time will tell whether this type of legitimacy will become dominant in Russian society.

See: Political Science. Textbook for high schools. Ed. prof. V.A. Achkasova and V.A. Gutorova. Read in full at: http://all-politologija.ru

The legitimacy of state power is a circumstance to which great importance is attached. Practice shows that the support of the authorities by the society and the demonstration of trust are an important factor in its effectiveness. Conversely, the weak conviction of citizens in the legitimacy of state power is one of the reasons for its instability. Therefore, any political power in every possible way seeks to maintain and stimulate the trust of the people. The objects of legitimation are usually the state itself and its bodies, the social system, the political regime, the ongoing political and economic programs, etc. For this, various means are used. Various documents are published: decrees, resolutions, legislative acts. Informal effective methods and means are used. These can be political movements in support of the authorities, non-governmental organizations pursuing the same goal.

The policy of legitimation of this power is formed in accordance with the real meaning of ideological and structural legitimacy, the role of the personality of political leaders. Researchers identify several ways (sources) of legitimation of power.

The first and most reliable way is the participation of citizens in governance, which creates a sense of people's involvement in the policy pursued by the authorities, allows people to feel themselves, to a certain extent, its subject. This is why democratic regimes, compared to others, have the greatest potential for legitimation.

Another source is the so-called technocratic legitimation, i.e. legitimation through administrative, economic, military, educational and similar activities of power. Technocratic means are reduced to the scientific and technical support of the political course (in laws, infrastructure, tax system, etc.). In this case, the legitimacy of power is directly dependent on the effectiveness of such activities, the end result of which is stability in society and the successful development of all aspects of public life. A series of economic failures during reforms or when a country emerges from a crisis weakens the legitimacy of power and can lead to the collapse of the political system. The legitimacy of the political power of Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore has increased largely due to economic achievements.

It is safe to say that the legitimacy of power in Russia is largely determined by how successfully it overcomes the economic crisis and ensures the development of the economy.

The third way of legitimation is force. All regimes are based on coercion, but the forms, extent of its distribution and use are different. It manifests itself in the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the individual, primarily the right to receive complete and objective information, speeches, associations, manifestations. The lower the level of legitimation, the stronger the coercion. Strength is the last argument of power, with the help of which it tries to increase the level of its legitimacy, but it is doubtful that power could hold out for a long time relying solely on strength. The use of force can not only increase the level of legitimacy, but also hasten the scorching of the regime. Force is an unreliable source of legitimation of power.

Power has the ability to increase legitimacy by influencing the consciousness and behavior of social groups, forming a certain public opinion. So the US authorities, before landing troops in Haiti, for a long time formed public opinion in the country, showing the dictatorial essence of the regime that existed there. The Russian authorities have not adequately prepared the country's public opinion for the use of military force to resolve the Chechen crisis. It was "oriented" to the use of "one regiment within two hours" to eliminate armed gangs. The Chechen war had a negative impact on the legitimacy of power, the level of which was low even before the war. According to a public opinion poll conducted at the end of 1994 by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 53.5% trusted the president of the country completely or with some reservations, 42.7% did not trust the Federation Council - 47.4% and 33.5%, the government - 62 .2% and 30.2%, the State Duma - 54.5% and 28.4%.

Among other ways that are of great importance for ensuring the legitimacy of power, one can single out the promotion of the values on which the current policy is based. Propaganda is any information aimed at forming a belief. Government propaganda serves functional socialization, i.e. acceptance by the masses of government policies. The ruling group is tempted to limit information about their activities and their results. The policy of restricting information comes down to the private blocking of those sources that come from centers hostile to the government. The cultivation of limited information, especially the absolute blocking of other, "unnecessary" information, entails both direct, immediate, and indirect, far-reaching consequences. Immediate results - prevention or reduction of reasons for unrest among the masses, doubts, opposition, alternatives. An indirect result is the habit of the masses of only one government information.

An example of the effective use of limited information is Stalinist propaganda. The Stalinist regime did not rest only on fear. The monopoly on information was actively used. The habit of a one-sided and tendentious political vision of all domestic and international processes led to the fact that a change of generations was required for the spiritual emancipation of society.

In the process of legitimation, the qualities of the political elite play an important role. History teaches that the strength of power, the effectiveness of the policy being pursued depend on the intellectual potential and energy of the elite, on its ability to take advantage of all favorable factors for itself, on the ability to neutralize unfavorable ones. Legitimacy does not stand still. Only the constant reproduction of legitimacy makes power strong and reliable.

Recent events in Russia provide an example of the legitimation of political power: after the events of October 1993, the creation of a new system of power was accompanied by the adoption of a new Constitution, a referendum, and elections to the Federal Assembly. With the help of these means, the new government carried out the process of its legitimation, i.e. gaining the support and trust of the people.

An important role in ensuring the legitimacy of power is played by the personality of a statesman as a guarantor of legitimacy. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 80) notes that the President of the Russian Federation is its guarantor and, therefore, he is the guarantor of legitimacy.

Such means as various kinds of rituals, symbols, and the use of traditions are essential for strengthening the confidence in the authorities on the part of the people. As an example of adherence to traditions and rituals, the English political system can be cited. In modern Russia, the oath of statesmen on the Constitution has become traditional.

An important place in the functioning of state power is occupied by the problems of delegitimization, the aggravation of which can cause a crisis and even the collapse of the political regime. In this regard, there is a need to identify the causes of delegitimation. One of the main reasons is the contradiction between the universal values that dominate society and the particular and even selfish interests of the ruling elite and social groups associated with it. The deepening of this contradiction leads to the fact that the government closes in on itself, losing the support of the population. This circumstance is at the same time a symptom of the developing crisis of power.

Another reason for the delegitimation of power, which is characteristic of democratic regimes, is the contradiction between the idea of democracy and socio-political practice. It manifests itself in an attempt by the authorities to solve emerging problems only by force, pressure on the media, restriction or non-observance of basic human rights. The chaotic manifestations of this contradiction indicate its presence in Russia, and the strengthening of these tendencies will lead to the replacement of a democratic regime by an authoritarian one. A favorable background for this is always the depoliticization and apathy of the population.

The third reason for the delegitimization of power is the lack of articulation of the interests of social groups in the political system; lack of sufficient vertical mobility, combined with social inequality, massive impoverishment of the population, etc. undermines the legitimacy of power. When intellectuals question the existing regime, its legitimacy falls. The radicalization of moods in society leads to the emergence of opposition, which puts forward an alternative vision of the social order. Obviously, this source of delegitimization of power exists in Russia.

The fourth reason for the delegitimization of power is the growing bureaucratization and corruption. The bureaucracy, for example, in the reformist senate of Russia found a way to enter into new relationships and structures through a kind of participation in the process of privatization and the creation of a market infrastructure. Due to an undeveloped civil society and insufficiently effective elective power “from top to bottom”, control “from below” is practically absent, and control “from above” is extremely weakened, which created unprecedented freedom for the bureaucracy. Corruption flourished, and above all its form of bribery. The possibility of converting power into wealth opened up. Pervasive corruption is a symptom not only of the delegitimization of power, but also of its crisis. The last stronghold of the regime that resists corruption is the court. If it affects him too, then the crisis and the fall of the regime can be considered a foregone conclusion. It should be noted, however, that scandals related to corruption are not necessarily an indicator of delegitimization, in some cases they can serve as evidence of the democratic and legitimate functioning of the political system, especially if an official (minister, head of state) who is noticed in corruption is forced to resign .

Among the reasons for the delegitimization of power in multinational states is nationalism, ethnic separatism, which rejects the legitimacy of federal power (this happened in Chechnya) or proclaims the supremacy of republican constitutions over federal law (this took place in Bashkortostan, Komi, Dagestan). The strengthening of nationalism and ethnic separatism weakens the legitimacy of the federal government, but also calls into question the state integrity of the country.

And, finally, the source of delegitimization of power can be the loss by the ruling elite itself of faith in the legitimacy of its power, the emergence of sharp contradictions within it, the clash of various branches of power.

These are the most important problems of the legitimacy of power, which in modern conditions is becoming extremely important.