POWER: CONCEPT AND ESSENCE
Ishchanova Gulnar Tulemisovna,
The associated professor of theory
of state, law
and constitutional law chair
Of the Kazakh National Pedagogical
University named after Abay,
Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
gulnar_tore@mail.ru
87779994379
The power is the very complex and multidimensional phenomenon in society
life, with tendencies of discrepancy inherent in it. Therefore partly science
still did not develop the uniform point of view on concept and principles of
this phenomenon. Also despite that there is no complete conventional theory of
the power and the power as that in general. It is hardly possible to agree with
views of Michelle Foucault who considers manifestations of this unique
phenomenon as « something remaining mysterious, unknown, and even demonic» [1,
page 206].
Sources of scientific understanding of the power as that are put in
values of this term which is reproduced in Russian dictionaries. For example,
in S.I.Ozhegov's dictionary the power is treated as «the law, force and will
over something, a freedom of action and orders, a ruling, management, the
administration, the chief or chiefs» [2, page 90].
In V.I.Dahl's dictionary the power it is understood: as «the law and
possibility to dispose whom - something to subordinate to the will... Political
domination, public administration and its bodies... the individuals convicted
by power, administrative power...» [3, page 213].
V.F. KKhalipov, in turn, provides the list of the phenomena similar to
Russian dictionaries which, in his opinion, are most often considered as the power.
The power is understood as ability, the right and possibility to dispose
someone and something, to influence deciding on destinies, behavior and
activity of people by means of different means, as political domination over
people, as system of state authorities, as individuals, the bodies invested by
the corresponding state and administrative power [by 4, page 15-16].
The given treatments of the power give the general very wide idea about
the power that points to regularity of this phenomenon with invariable
characteristic features. However for the real research of the nature of the power
it is necessary to establish that the power, public administration and the
state mechanism follow under categories.
Despite a set of approaches to power definition, for more substantial
and high-grade analysis of essence of the power as the phenomena social and
public, it is necessary to pay, first of all, close attention to sources and
the power nature as all-sociological categories. Following this logic, we will
find out that there is a power from a sociological position.
The modern cratology knows various treatments of concept of the power
[5, page 158], [6, pages 94-96], [7, pages 67-68] and a set of classifications
of the power by various criteria [8, pages 277-281], [9, page 32] that reflects
all complexity, a multicomplexity of this unique phenomenon of public life. For
example, according to S. S. Frolov, «the power has a set of degrees, shades and
manifestation forms from a loud hail until whisper» [10, page 45].
Some theorists understand the power as special type of influence, others
as ability to achievement of definite purposes, the third - possibility of any
use of means, for the fourth power page 34] is represented as the special
relation between managing directors and operated subjects [11.
As a rule, the power is understood as ability of her subject (the
certain individual, the management of large corporation, the state) to impose
the will to other people, collectives, the organizations, to dispose and
operate their actions, using any violent and nonviolent means and methods to
adapt their behavior for own interests. The following definition of the Power
most often meets: «The Power is a specific way (means) which provides following
of will of the operated subject to will of the subject of the managing director»
[12, page 5].
According to the author, it is necessary to understand as the social Power
also inherent in any community of people the domination and submission relation
between the subjects, leaning on coercion in this or that form.
Sign of any power is the submission of the object to the subject.
Characteristic of the imperious relations is their asymmetry. The majority of
modern scientists recognize that the inequality to some extent is peculiar to
the power.
Despite all contradiction and variety of definitions of essence of the
social power, representatives of sociological scientific thought (and not only
them) consider that the power as that is always based on coercion. However some
scientists pay attention that coercion is only a sign of power owing to what a
usual mistake is the power identification with coercion which, in turn, is its
most appreciable tool only [13, page 115]. Really, in modern society there are
the imperious relations based not so much on submission of one subject to will
of another (subordinated to the dominating), as on the voluntary, realized
recognition of power over it.
Criteria of classification are diverse depending on the historical
periods of development, political interests, views of this or that social
group, these or those bases of division are presented (economic, ideological,
including state, etc.) [14, pages 146-150], [15, page 81], [16, page 282].
As to the state power, it, in turn, also contains the element of
coercion proceeding from the state in the individual of its state authorities
and officials, and, therefore, represents a special version of the social power.
The power, according to G.F.Shershenevich, «is the will based on independent
force of one (dominating) to subordinate will of others (subject) to itself»
[17, page 89].
The power, forms of its organization and implementation are the most
volume and traditional problem in a state and legal science. Unequivocal
approaches divided by all to definition of this type of the power in literature
are absent.
L.I.Petrazhitsky pointed to obscurity and argumentativeness of the
nature of the power [18, page 68]. It is possible to be convinced of it,
getting acquainted with works of prominent pre-revolutionary Russian lawyers of
N. M. Korkunov, L.I.Sorokin, V. M. Khvostov. So, N. M. Korkunov believes: «The power
as the force caused by consciousness of citizens of their dependence on the state
generates peculiar phenomena of a double sort in public life. First, it induces
citizens to make that they consider necessary for the state from which
understand itself dependent... Secondly, citizens submit to commands of the
individuals recognized by public authorities» [19, page 300].
In other value exercised the term «power» P.A.Sorokin: «If the power is
ignorant and is aimed at the policy not for the society’s benefit, and narrow-egoistical
reasons of own advantage, growth of intervention of that power other things
being equal hardly will be plus, it will do public harm» [20, page 90].
V.M.Khvostov argued: «The Supreme Power of the state in
principle is as uniform, as the state. It does not represent itself as set of
separate powers between which there are gaps, but there is a coherent: unity»
[21, page 15].
The essence of the power in understanding of the majority of researchers
of modern scientific and legal thought in narrow treatment is represented as
the relation of public and political nature of domination and submission
between subjects of this power, leaning on the state coercion [22 pages
553-560], [23, page 282], [24, page 45].
According to Yu.A.Dmitriev the power possesses the following distinctive
properties: only the power has the right to adoption of regulations; only the power
is always carried out in a certain legal framework; only the power possesses
the sovereignty; only the method of state and imperious coercion is inherent to
the power [25, in page 32].
Yu.A.Dmitriev's reasonings on the nature of the power are partly true,
however are very short and incomplete. Besides the above-stated properties the power
possesses also other very significant distinctive features.
There is a set of separate classifications of the power within which
distinguish a set of its versions of the power, to define which it is possible
on the various bases: to its social character (to ways of domination of social
forces in society), to territorial scales of activity of public authorities,
tasks and methods of its implementation etc. [26, page 300], [27, page 71].
According to the author, the power is necessary for distinguishing in
several understandings.
First, the power is, first of all, is the right also state possibility
in the appearance of the state authorities and officials to affect destinies,
relations and activity of people by means of various means and methods.
Secondly, it is possible to define the power as the base public relation
between people, their community and formations, possessing properties of
supremacy, unity, generality and universality, compulsoriness and
all-obligation.
Thirdly, the power can be presented by system of the relevant institutes
and the state authorities, making the imperious decisions, allowing to dispose
of activity of the society, associations of people operating in it and
separately taken citizens, to direct, supervise and subordinate this activity to
their will.
Fourthly, V.E.Chirkin very fairly and convincingly argues that «the power
is not only the sociopolitical phenomenon; from the legal point of view it is
also institute of a constitutional law, i.e. system of the rules of law
regulating the social phenomenon - the power from legal position» [15, page
117], paying thereby attention to the importance of power statehood as legal
category and need of its legislative fixing for constitutions. It is difficult
to disagree with such position, for durability of the constitutional system in
essential degree depends on rationality of the organization, first of all, the power;
besides, one of the main functions of any constitution consists in creation of
a certain system of public authorities.
The power is the most authoritative and significant authorities from all
other types that is shown in the nature of the power, or its signs. It is
described as follows:
1) The power a priori is the power ordered, and organized purposefully.
Almost all its collective subjects, and also its bodies and establishments, as
a rule, represent not only and not so much associations, as an organization,
but special type of organization - the imperious and state organizations,
distinct from all others.
All its elements (subjects, their activity and the relations, actions,
statements, the purposes, objects, means, results, etc.) are purposefully
correlated, ordered, coordinated with each other.
2) The power arises, exists, functions and develops in the state as
territorial organization of people which is carried out strictly in limits
(borders) of the territory of this state, and also is limited of. Thus, the power
is distributed as for all territory of the state, as for all its macro
territory, and on its certain sub territorial segments, parts, units in which
it is presented by its subjects.
3) The power operates on behalf of the state and the nation, and also on
behalf of society and the people. The power, believes V.E.Chirkin, «as the power
social, is not private as it, for example, takes place in a family, not
corporate, as in the organization, and public. It is the power operating on
behalf of all society» [27, page 81]. Because it is called public, without
coinciding with society, speaks on behalf of its name, on behalf of all people,
is urged to carry out public functions and to solve common causes.
Subjects of the power, employees of power should carry out the functions
openly, that is publicly. Really, the power is a special type of the power. Its
public character logically convinces that the power state is manifestation of
the public power; it is a version and a way of implementation of the public power.
Speaking about the power as about the public power,
however, follows them to distinguish:
Firstly, on structure of the subjects
possessing the corresponding imperious power. As direct subjects of the power
state authorities of the power act, and the circle of subjects of the public power
is much wider, these are political parties, public associations, and local powers.
Secondly, distinction between the state and
public power consists that they have the different sphere for implementation of
the power. The sphere of action of the power is actually the state and limits
of its power. The power of the state extends on civil society only regarding
the established rules of law providing its normal functioning. Mainly as the
sphere of implementation of the public power representatives of civil society
act. The public power is beyond civil society only when impact on process of
formation of state authorities or implementation of pressure upon them is
necessary.
Thirdly, distinction between considered types
of the power consists in the methods used by them for achievement of goals.
Both types of the power use rather wide complex of methods of imperious
influence. Distinction consists that subjects of the public power can't
directly use the method of state and imperious coercion inherent in exclusively
subjects of the power.
4) The power of the state is universal, it can
extend on all relations which are regulated by the state and the right and give
in to such regulation.
In turn, the measure of generality and
universality of the power can be various: it can be both minimum and possible greatest
one. Therefore, the power is the unique power which concerns absolutely all individuals
living in this country, and is for them the obligatory power.
The power possesses legally and practically always
the actual supremacy in the society; all other types of the power in relation
to it have the subordinated character. The power establishes a framework and
borders of activity of other types of the power, defines «rules of the game»,
areas of jurisdiction and power for all other types of the public power.
5) The sovereignty is the qualitative characteristic of the power, and
is equal also the states. According to B.C. Shevtsov, this line of the power «is
not integrated with any other public ruling,
and therefore the concept «power» does not include any non-state forms of power» [28, page 89]. Despite
integration processes occurring in the world, the concept «sovereignty»
continues to remain the central and fundamental category of a concept of state.
6) The power is, as a rule, the legal (legalized) power, based on the
right, laws. Subjects of the power and employees of power not only are
authorized the state or its imperious bodies, not only possess the lawful
right, but also under the law are obliged to carry out certain imperious
functions.
Arguing on legality of the power, it is necessary to emphasize that only
such power is legalized in use of force and other means of a ruling within the
borders of the state: only the power is legally authorized on behalf of all
society to apply legalized and in most cases legitimate coercion, sometimes a
direct physical abuse.
7) the most important feature of the power consists in as it is shown in
activity of state authorities and the establishments forming the mechanism
(device) of this power. Probably, therefore the power is often identified with
bodies of the state, especially the highest ones. From the scientific point of
view such identification is inadmissible. The dominating subject can realize
the power.
Thus, the power is a special type of the power, its special expression:
public character state to the power proves, actually, that the power is first
of all the manifestation of the public power, its version and a way of implementation.
List of references:
1. Power: sketches of modern political philosophy of the West. - Moscow,
1989.
2. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. Explanatory dictionary of Russian. -
Az Publishing House, 1992.
3. Dahl V.I. The explanatory dictionary of Russian in 4 volumes. - Volume
1. - Moscow, 1989.
4. Khalipov V. F. Bases of Cratology. - Moscow, 1995.
5. Vyatr E. Sociology of political relations / Translation from Polish -
Moscow: Progress, 1979.
6. Pugachyov V.P., Solovyov A.I. Introduction into political science:
The textbook for students of higher education institutions. 4th
edition, revised and added - Moscow: Aspect Press, 2002.
7. Chulanov Yu.G.Political science: Textbook. Part 1. - Saint-Petersburg:
SPbGUEF Publishing House, 1997.
8. Ledyaev V. G. Power: conceptual analysis. M.: Russian political
encyclopedia, 2001. - pages 277-281;
9. Khalipov V. F. Cratology as system of sciences about the Power. -
Moscow: Republic, 1999.
10. Frolov S. S. Sociology: textbook. - Moscow: Science, 1994.
11. Introduction into political science. - Moscow, 1996.
12. Alekhin A.P., KozlovYu.M.Administrative law of the Russian
Federation. - Moscow: Zertsalo, 2003.
13. Chirkin V. E. Modern state. - Moscow: International relations, 2001.
14. Glazunov N. I. System of public administration: The textbook for higher
education institutions. - Moscow: UNITI-DANA, 2003. - pages 146-150;
15. Chirkin V. E. Concept of statehood: textbook. 2nd edition,
corrected and added - Moscow: Jurist, 2000.
16. Lyubashits V. Ya., Mordovtsev A.Yu., Timoshenko I.V., Shapsugov D.
Yu. Theory of state and law: textbook. - Moscow: MarT Publishing House, 2003.
17. Shershenevich G. F. The general theory of law. In 2 volumes. -
Moscow, 1995. - Volume 2.
18. Petrazhitsky L.I.Theory of law and state in connection with the
moral theory. - Volume 1. - Saint-Petersburg, 1909.
19. Korkunov N. M. Lectures on the general theory of law / author
I.Yu.Kozlikhin's preface. - Moscow: Legal Press center, 2003.
20. Sorokin P. A. The elementary textbook of the general theory of law
in connection with theory of state. - Yaroslavl, 1919.
21. Khvostov of V. M. The general theory of law - Saint-Petersburg -
Moscow, 1914.
22. Gomerov I.N. State and power: preconditions, features, structure. -
Moscow: UKEA Publishing House, 2002.
23. Lyubashits V. Ya., Mordovtsev A.Yu., Timoshenko I.V., Shapsugov D. Yu. State and theory of
law: textbook. - Moscow: MarT Publishing House, 2003.
24. Matuzov N. I., Malko A.V. State and theory of law: textbook. -
Moscow: Jurist, 2003.
25. Yu.A.Dmitriev. A ratio of political and power concepts in conditions
of formation of civil society//the State and the Law. - 1994. - No.7.
26. Lyubashits V. Ya., Mordovtsev A.Yu., Timoshenko I.V., Shapsugov D.
Yu. State and theory of law: textbook. Moscow: MarT Publishing House, 2003.
27. Chirkin V. E. Modern state. - Moscow: International relations, 2001.
28. Human rights and the state in Russian Federation / V. S. Shevtsov. -
Moscow: Professional education, 2002.