The Iron Law of Oligarchy" by R. Michels

The iron law of oligarchy

IRON LAW OF OLIGARCY

(iron law of oligarchy) This is what Robert Michels (1875–1936) himself called his “law” that even socialist parties that preach internal democracy can in fact find themselves under the rule of a small elite: “Whoever says “organization” says “oligarchy.” And the goals of the organization will be undermined by the self-interested elite. That no large organization is permanently controlled by a majority of its members is Michels's correct but trivial statement. However, he pointed to the real reason, which remains painful for organizations formally professing internal democracy.

Policy. Dictionary. - M.: "INFRA-M", Publishing House "Ves Mir". D. Underhill, S. Barrett, P. Burnell, P. Burnham, etc. General editor: Doctor of Economics. Osadchaya I.M.. 2001 .

The iron law of oligarchy

iron law of oligarchy

This is what Robert Michels (1875-1936) called his “law”, which states that even socialist parties that proclaim internal democracy can find themselves under the rule of the elite: “Whoever says ‘organization’ says ‘oligarchy’.” Michels substantiated the need for an “active minority” (elite) in a democratic society and rejected the dominance of the masses, arguing that the majority of members of a large organization are not able to control its activities. Michels considered the reasons for the existence of this law to be the objective necessity of leadership, the desire of leaders to put their own interests at the forefront, the trust of the crowd in the leaders and the general passivity of the masses. It follows from the iron law of oligarchy that democratic governance is impossible in any large communities of individuals. The larger the organization, the fewer elements of democracy and more elements of oligarchy it contains. For this reason, Michels moved away from socialism and began to support Mussolini, considering oligarchic management not only not vicious, but even beneficial for society as a whole.

Political Science: Dictionary-Reference Book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 .

Political science. Dictionary. - RSU. V.N. Konovalov. 2010.

See what the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” is in other dictionaries:

The Iron Law of Oligarchy is a principle of elite theory first formulated by Robert Michels in 1911. It consists in the fact that any form of social organization, regardless of its initial democracy or autocracy,... ... Wikipedia

English ggop law of oligarchy; German Oligarchie, Gesetzt der eisernen. The principle of degeneration is political, power, according to which power is inevitably concentrated in the hands of the ruling minority, regardless of the form of government. Antinazi. Encyclopedia... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

IRON LAW OF OLIGARCY- (iron law of oligarchy) tendency among political organizations ( political parties and trade unions) become oligarchic, despite the fact that they may strive for internal democracy. He who says organization, says oligarchy,... ... Large explanatory sociological dictionary

IRON LAW OF OLIGARCY- (Greek oligos few, archia power) an elitist concept based on the inevitability of the distribution of society into a ruling minority (elite) and a passive majority. According to this concept, the need to manage society, which (also... ... Political science dictionary-reference book

IRON LAW OF OLIGARCY- English ggop law of oligarchy; German Oligarchie, Gesetzt der eisernen. The principle of degeneration is political, power, according to which power is inevitably concentrated in the hands of the ruling minority, regardless of the form of government... Explanatory dictionary of sociology

The Iron Law of Oligarchy (R. Michels)- any democratic movement, community or party inevitably degenerates over time into an oligarchy, a closed caste of rulers... Sociology: dictionary

The request "Oligarch" is redirected here; see also other meanings. Forms of government, political regimes and systems Anarchy Aristocracy Bureaucracy Gerontocracy Demarchy Democracy ... Wikipedia

The request "Oligarch" is redirected here. See also other meanings. Forms of government Aristocracy Gerontocracy Democracy Imitation democracy Liberal democracy Representative democracy Direct democracy Bourgeois democracy ... Wikipedia

The request "Oligarch" is redirected here. See also other meanings. Forms of government Aristocracy Gerontocracy Democracy Imitation democracy Liberal democracy Representative democracy Direct democracy Bourgeois democracy ... Wikipedia

· the dominance of the elite is determined by the impossibility of direct participation of the masses in management processes and control on their part;

· the organization of political interactions, including mechanisms for representing the interests of citizens, inevitably promotes minorities to leadership positions;

· the natural dynamics of organizational processes certainly leads to degeneration ruling groups into oligarchic associations.

Political elite- this is an internally differentiated, heterogeneous, but relatively integrated group of persons (or a set of groups) that constitutes a minority of society, possessing leadership qualities and prepared to perform managerial functions, occupying leadership positions in public institutions and (or) directly influencing the adoption of government decisions in society. (Soloviev’s textbook)

Elite - possesses exceptional qualities and is aware of its superiority and dominates the rest of society.

Functions of the elite:

1. Setting and maintaining norms and patterns in society

2. Determining directions and priorities for development

3. Formation of public opinion

4. Recruitment

The creators of the concept of the elite are Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels, theorists of the Italian school of political sociology. The concept is based on observation of real political behavior and interaction between policy actors.

The doctrine of the “political class” G. Mosca

The political class is minority ruling majority because it organized. The cohesion of this class is achieved through the presence of organization and structure. However, the class is heterogeneous - it consists of a very small group of “top management” and a much larger group of “middle management”.

The development of any society, regardless of the mode of social and political organization, is directed by the leading class.

The ruling minority differs from the masses in its inherent special qualities. Therefore, access to the political class presupposes that the individual has special qualities and abilities. These qualities are: military prowess, wealth, priesthood (hence the three forms of aristocracy: military, financial and ecclesiastical). The dominant criterion is the ability to manage people.

The elite must be updated. Three ways elite renewals: inheritance, choice and co-optation(volitional introduction of new members into the elite).

Two trends in the development of the ruling class: (1) the desire of its representatives to make their privileges hereditary, (2) the desire of new forces to replace the old ones. If the first tendency (aristocratic) prevails, then the elite becomes closed, society’s development opportunities are reduced and it stagnates. If the second tendency (democratic) dominates, access to the elite does not cause difficulties and rapid renewal occurs, but the danger of instability and political crises increases. Therefore, Mosca gave preference to societies where there is a balance of these tendencies.

The effectiveness of the ruling class in performing power functions largely depends on its organization. Depending on the principle of transfer of power, there are two types of political governance: autocratic (power is transferred from top to bottom) and liberal (power is delegated from bottom to top). A combination of two types is possible (for example, USA).

Psychological theory of the elite by V. Pareto

The main motives of activity and driving forces stories are psychological stimuli - “rhizidois”. They come down to biological instincts, irrational feelings, emotions, etc. In society, these incentives take the form of explaining illogical behavior - “derivation”.

Therefore, Pareto believed that politics is largely a function of psychology.

Elite is a collection of groups of individuals who operate with high performance in any area. Those. The elite is defined by its innate psychological properties.

The elite is heterogeneous and consists of two parts: ruling(participating in decision making) and unruly(not participating).

The elite is small in number and holds power over the majority partially by force, and partly thanks to consent from the population.

Elites tend to decline, and non-elites are capable of producing potentially elite elements. All social transformations are determined by the circulation of elites. Continuous circulation of elites promotes balance social system to the extent that it provides an influx of the best.

If the elite resists renewal, it becomes isolated and its replacement occurs through revolutionary means.

The development of society occurs through periodic changes and circulation of two main types of elites - “foxes” (flexible leaders using “soft” leadership methods: negotiations, concessions, flattery, persuasion, etc.) and “lions” (tough and decisive rulers relying primarily on force).

Michels' concept of oligarchy

The reasons for political stratification and the impossibility of democracy lie in the essence of man, the characteristics of political struggle and the specifics of the development of organizations. These reasons lead to oligarchy.

The phenomenon of oligarchy is explained psychologically (the psychology of the masses and organizations) and organically (the laws of structures, organizations). Psychological factors play a major role.

Among the groups vying for power within a parliamentary democracy, the most effective are those able to secure the support of the organized “masses.” But the very principle of organization necessary to lead the “masses” leads to the emergence of a hierarchy of power headed by an oligarchy.

An organization divides people into a leading minority and a leading majority. Organizational leaders tend to oppose rank and file members, forming closed coalitions. The sovereignty of the “masses” turns out to be illusory. This is how it works " iron law of oligarchy».

The oligarchic structure is based not only on the desire of the leaders to strengthen their own authority, but also on the inertia of the “masses” and the technical properties of the political organization.

The elite is a product of the national psyche.

In the structure of the class, three elements are distinguished, the interaction of which is determined by the needs of exercising dominance: political, economic and intellectual. In different historical conditions, real power becomes the political-economic, political-intellectual or strong-willed political class.

Modern theories of elites.

Elitist approach and elite management theory

The elitist approach continues the classical tradition of analyzing the elite as a relatively cohesive group performing power functions, with considerable attention paid to the heterogeneity of the elite, its structure and ways of influencing society. The management theory of the elite was first presented in the work of an American political scientist J. Bernheim"The Managerial Revolution" (1940). Radical changes in the political class, which he called a revolution, are associated with the emergence of a managerial elite (managers), which supplanted the capitalist class of owners. The dominance of managers is due to the need for competent management of technically complex industries. The political dominance of the managerial elite is based not on property or the ability to distribute resources, but on knowledge, education, and professional competence.

American sociologist D. Bell: the concept of “post-industrial society”(“The Coming Post-Industrial Society” 1973). Division into managers and managed in information society occurs on the basis of knowledge and competence. These qualities allow the new intellectual elite to make the greatest contribution to the development of society.

The institutional approach and the theory of elites by R. Mills

Elite as a group of statuses and strategic roles.

In his work “The Power Elite,” R. Mills defined the elite as those “who occupy command positions.” “Command strategic positions in the social structure” are occupied by those who are at the head of social institutions (a set of roles and statuses designed to satisfy a specific social need). The most significant for society are: political, economic, military institutions. Those who head these institutions constitute the power elite. Mills: “By the power elite we mean those political, economic and military circles that, in a complex interweaving of groupings, share the power to make decisions of at least national importance.” C.R. Mills (1916 – 1962) used the example of American society to show the existence of ruling elites in the twentieth century. The book “The Power Elite” (there is a Russian translation). The states are ruled by a coalition of elites consisting of three groups: the economic elite, consisting of managers of the largest concerns, closely connected with each other and with the government, shuttling between the government and firms; political - the executive apparatus, which partially regulates even the activities of legislative bodies; military elite. They form a kind of power cartel. They make decisions in all areas of society. They have the same origin and upbringing, the same worldview, close personal ties.

Robert Dahl- one of the modern classics of political science spoke out against Mills (“Who Rules? Democracy and Power in America”, 1961). He said that in America there is a pluralization of power: there are many unconnected, dispersed power groups, and the interests of each of them limit the power of others.

Reputation approach and concept of R. – J. Schwarzenberg

The elite is a closed group whose status and activities are assessed by other groups of society, i.e. they determine its reputation.

J. Maino“Report on the Ruling Class of Italy” (1964): The elite - the “ruling class” is closed, recruited from wealthy families, thanks to the strength of personal, informal ties between members of the ruling class, has high group cohesion. The elite uses its ability to influence all aspects of public life to maintain its own favorable image among other groups.

R. – J. Schwarzenberg“Absolute Right” (1981): The elite is a closed caste (caste is the new aristocracy, it is a “triangle of power” consisting of politicians, senior administration and business circles). She absolutely controls the government, forms the government, runs the state, runs large corporations and banks. French political scientist Schwarzenberg believes that because France does not adhere to the principle of separation of powers; power is oligarchic in nature, and the elite is a single class that monopolizes power in the political, administrative and economic sectors. Recruitment comes from the upper strata of society, receiving a prestigious, elite education.

Pluralistic approach and theories of plurality of elites (A. Bentley, R. Dahl, R. Aron, P. Sharan)

The elite is no longer a monolithic entity, but a collection of collaborating or competing leadership groups. This is due to the increasing diversity of human activities that satisfy constantly evolving human needs. Complication of the power structure itself.

American political scientist Bentley in the work "The Process of Government" (1908) viewed politics as a process of interaction between interested groups. Government institutions (constitution, congress, president, courts) represent and express the interests of “official groups”. To “official groups”, i.e. to the elite he attributed legislative, executive, administrative, judicial and legal institutions, the army, the police, the guiding influence of which is ensured by their ability to impose resolution of conflicts between individual groups and thus maintain political stability.

A regime in which there are many autonomous decision-making centers, American political scientist R. Dahl called polyarchy and thus characterized the political process in the United States. In this model of power, no elite is supreme. From the free competition of rival groups within the limits established by general consent, social equilibrium arises.

Some researchers identify leadership groups within the elite based on the delimitation of their spheres of influence and the resources used. R. Aron in his work “Social class, political class, governing class” (1969) he identified 6 leading categories: 1. political elite; 2. holders of “spiritual power” who influence the way of thought and faith (priests, intellectuals, writers, scientists, party ideologists); 3. military and police commanders; 4. leaders of collective labor, owners or managers of the means of production; 5. leaders of the masses (leaders of trade unions and political parties); 6 senior functionaries, holders of administrative power.

Indian political scientist P. Sharan in the book “The Theory of Comparative Political Science” (1984) he said that the maturity of society and the nature of cultural values ​​largely determine the image of the elite, the resources of its dominance and influence. On this basis, he identified the traditional elite and the modern one. The resources for power of the traditional elite are religion, customs, traditions, cultural stereotypes. The modern elite includes various social and professional groups - leaders, bureaucrats, intellectuals, businessmen, technocrats. According to the degree of influence on the strategic decision-making process, Sharan divided the modern elite into 3 groups: the highest (those who are directly involved in the decision-making process), the middle (membership of which is determined by 3 indicators: income level, professional status, education) and the administrative elite (highest layer

civil servants).

7. Political leadership: nature, content, typologies.

For 2011: (It's DEFINITELY worth cutting)

Leadership theory: nature and approaches

Leadership- Public leadership is a social function determined by a person’s ability to consciously set generally significant goals and determine ways to achieve them within the framework of political institutions created for this purpose.

You can understand the phenomenon of leadership and its evolution by analyzing its components: 1) the character of the leader; 2) his political beliefs; 3) motivation for political activity; 4) the properties of his supporters and all political subjects interacting with him; 5) the specific historical situation of the leader’s rise to power; 6) technology for exercising leadership. A holistic and multifaceted picture of the manifestation of leadership develops as society evolves and social relationships become more complex, actualizing the specific functions of the leader.

Such a leader, according to Plato, a born philosopher. He justified the right of philosophers to political dominance by the fact that they “contemplate something harmonious and eternally identical, which does not create injustice and does not suffer from it, full of order and meaning.” What leaders find in the world of ideal existence, they bring “into the private social life of people,” making human morals pleasing to God. Leaders, in Plato’s understanding, act as the true creators of history: “It is enough for one such person to appear, who has the state under his command, and this person will do everything that is now not believed.”

In his Parallel Lives, Plutarch continued the Platonic tradition of depicting the ideal image of a leader. He showed a brilliant galaxy of Greeks and Romans with high moral standards and principles.

The ethical-mythological tradition in the analysis of political leadership retained its influence in the Middle Ages, introducing into it the idea of ​​​​leaders being chosen by God, in contrast to mere mortals.

N. Machiavelli lane brought the problem of political leadership from the realm of what is imagined and what should be to the surface real life. In his works “The Prince” and “Reflections on the First Decade of Titus Livius,” he defined the nature, functions and technology of leadership. N. Machiavelli isolated the content of leadership based on observations of the real behavior of the ruler and his relationships with his subjects. The basis of leadership, according to Machiavelli, is an orientation towards power, the possession of which is associated with obtaining wealth and privileges. The ability to strive for power does not depend on personal merits or shortcomings. It acts like an objective law, independent of the will and consciousness of people. Success in advancement to the heights of power is determined not so much by the intensity of orientation towards power, but by available funds. A ruler who wants to achieve success in his endeavors must conform his actions to the laws of necessity (fate) and to the behavior of his subordinates. Strength is on his side when he takes into account the psychology of people, knows the peculiarities of their way of thinking, moral principles, advantages and disadvantages.

According to N. Machiavelli, human behavior is based on two motives - fear and love. The ruler must use them. When exercising power, it is better to combine both motives. However, in real life this is almost unattainable, and for the personal benefit of the ruler it is better to keep his subjects at bay. But we must act in such a way that fear does not develop into hatred, otherwise the leader may be overthrown by indignant subjects. To prevent this from happening, the leader must not encroach on the property and personal rights of citizens.

The technology of stable leadership, according to Machiavelli, consists of a skillful combination of means of reward and punishment. People take revenge, as a rule, for minor insults and insults. Strong pressure deprives them of the opportunity to take revenge. A leader who aspires to absolute power must keep his subjects in such fear as to eliminate all hope of resistance. It is better to squander blessings and good deeds drop by drop, so that subordinates have enough time to properly evaluate them. Rewards should only be valued when they serve their purpose. Awards and promotions are valued if they are rare and given in “small doses.” On the contrary, it is better to apply negative incentives and punishment immediately and in “large doses.” One-time cruelty is endured with less irritation than spread out over time.

Building a theory of leadership on the relationship between “ruler and subjects,” N. Machiavelli derived the character of the leader from this interaction. A wise leader combines the qualities of a lion (strength and honesty) and the qualities of a fox (mystification and skillful dissimulation). Therefore, he has both innate and acquired qualities. By nature, a person is given less than he receives by living in society. He is straightforward, cunning or talented by birth, but ambition, greed, vanity, cowardice are formed in the process of socialization of the individual.

The incentive for active activity is dissatisfaction. The fact is that people always want more, but they cannot always achieve it. The gap between what is desired and what is actually created creates a dangerous tension that can break a person, make him greedy, envious and insidious, since the desire to receive exceeds our strength, and opportunities are always in short supply. The result is dissatisfaction with what a person already owns. N. Machiavelli called this state dissatisfaction. It is she who helps turn what is desired into reality.

However, dissatisfaction can manifest itself in envy and assertiveness. According to N. Machiavelli, envy creates enemies, and assertiveness gains supporters. Acting as a brilliant expert on human psychology, he amazes with unexpectedly accurate comparisons and shocks with his revelations: “I still believe that it is better to be assertive than cautious, because fate is a woman and in order to defeat her, you need to beat and push her. In such cases, she more often concedes victory than when they show coldness towards her. And, as a woman, she is inclined to be friends with young people because they are less cautious, more ardent and more bold in their dominance over her.”

The role of a leader in society is determined by the functions that he is called upon to perform. Among the most important functions, N. Machiavelli identified ensuring public order and stability in society; integration of diverse interests and groups; mobilization of the population to achieve universally significant goals. In general, N. Machiavelli’s theory of leadership is built on the basis of four provisions (variables): 1) the leader’s power is rooted in the support of his supporters, 2) subordinates must know what they can expect from their leader and understand what he expects from them; 3) the leader must have the will to survive; 4) the ruler is always a model of wisdom and justice for his supporters.

Subsequently, leadership researchers focused special attention on certain components of this multifaceted phenomenon: either on the traits and origins of the leader; or on the social context of his leadership, that is, the social conditions of coming to power and exercising leadership; or on the nature of the relationship between the leader and his supporters; or on the results of interactions between the leader and his followers in certain situations. The emphasis in the analysis of leadership on one or another variable led to an ambiguous interpretation of this phenomenon and initiated the emergence of a number of theories that examined the nature of leadership. Among the most common and generally accepted leadership theories are trait theory, situational analysis theory, situational personality theory, and integrative leadership theory.

In trait theory(K. Beard, E. Bogardus, Y. Jennings, etc.) a leader is considered as a set of certain psychological traits, the presence of which contributes to his promotion to a leading position and gives him the ability to make power decisions in relation to other people. This theory represents an important direction in Western empirical sociology of the 30s - 50s. XX century, which sought to express the phenomenon of leadership specifically and tangibly.

Trait theory arose at the beginning of the 20th century. influenced by the research of the English anthropologist F. Galton, who explained the nature of leadership from the standpoint of heredity. From the point of view of this approach, royal dynasties and the consequences of dynastic marriages were studied. The main idea of ​​this approach is the assertion that if a leader has special qualities that distinguish him from followers, then these qualities can be distinguished. These qualities are inherited.

In 1940, American psychologist C. Beard compiled a list of 79 traits referred to by various researchers as “leadership.” Among them were initiative, sociability, sense of humor, enthusiasm, confidence, friendliness, sharp mind, competence, etc. But none of them occupied a strong place in the lists: 65% of the named traits were mentioned only once; 16 - 20% - twice; 4 - 5% - three times and only 5% of traits are named four times. Subsequent studies found that the individual qualities of leaders are almost no different from the set of psychological and social personality traits in general.

However, regardless of this, senior officials are perceived as exceptional in the meaning of the dominant political culture and mentality, and the population attributes certain virtues to them. From compliance specific politician This idea of ​​him depends on the degree of his support by the masses. In American political culture, the president must have some of the most important traits from the point of view of people, and first of all, he must be an honest, respectable family man. In addition, he must be open-minded, decisive and have other moral qualities; be able to inspire the trust of the masses. It was the possession of such qualities that made Ronald Reagan one of the most popular presidents in post-war US history.

Psychological interpretation of leadership focuses on the motivation of the leader’s behavior. A manifestation of extreme psychologism in understanding the nature of leadership is the previously mentioned concept of psychoanalysis by 3. Freud, who interpreted political leadership as a sphere of manifestation of suppressed libido - an unconscious desire of a sexual nature. Dissatisfaction with sexual needs creates psychological tension in the individual, which is compensated by the thirst for power, the possession of significant powers of power, allowing the individual to get rid of various complexes (for example, physical disabilities, unattractive appearance, etc.).

However, suppressed libido manifests itself in political activity as a desire for unlimited power, a desire to derive pleasure from the humiliation of other people, and a thirst for destruction. An analysis of the destructive type of political behavior with features of masochism and sadism, considered in the context of the sublimation of suppressed libido, was given by the American psychologist E. Fromm, in his work “Necrophiles and Adolf Hitler.” Using the method of psychobiography, E. Fromm traced, starting from early childhood, the process of formation of the destructive political leadership of the leader of Nazi Germany. However, deducing the phenomenon of leadership from the totality of psychological traits of a person or from his motivations and motives (conscious and unconscious) is not able to answer questions of a practical nature. For example, why did power often end up in the hands of far from the most intelligent, decent and honest people? An equally important problem: why did the most capable, talented, strong-willed individuals find themselves unclaimed by society?

I tried to answer the above questions and overcome the psychological interpretation of leadership. situation analysis theory, according to which a leader appears as a result of a combination of circumstances of place, time and others. In the life of a group, in various situations, individuals stand out who are superior to others in at least one quality. And since this particular quality is in demand under the current conditions, a person who possesses it becomes a leader. Situational leadership theory views the leader as a function of a particular situation, emphasizing the relativity of traits inherent in a leader, and suggesting that qualitatively different circumstances may require qualitatively different leaders. For example, the extraordinary circumstances of economic devastation and foreign policy isolation of the USSR “led” to power the totalitarian leader I.V. Stalin. Economic crisis 1929 - 1933, the consequences of Germany's national humiliation after defeat in the First World War gave rise to the helplessness of the institutions of parliamentary democracy and “demanded” a strong leader - A Hitler.

Attempts to avoid extremes in the interpretation of the phenomenon of leadership (either from the position of trait theory or within the framework of the theory of situational analysis) objectively required expanding the boundaries of the analysis of factors in the formation of leading positions and determining the content of power influence. These attempts led to the emergence personal-situational theory. Its supporters, G. Tert and S. Mills, among the leadership variables that make it possible to understand its nature, identified the following four factors: 1) traits and motives of the leader as a person; 2) images of the leader and motives that exist in the minds of his followers, encouraging them to follow him; 3) characteristics of the leader's role; 4) legal and institutional conditions for its activities.

American political scientist Margaret J. Hermann expanded the number of variables that, in her opinion, allow us to better reveal the essence of leadership, including: 1) the leader’s basic political beliefs; 2) the political style of the leader; 3) the motives that guide the leader; 4) the leader’s reaction to pressure and stress; 5) the circumstances due to which the leader first found himself in the position of leader; 6) previous political experience of the leader; 7) the political climate in which the leader began his political career.

Thus, political science has moved from one-sided psychologism in the analysis of leadership to a more holistic study of this phenomenon using sociological approaches. The social nature of leadership indicated that it is the result of interaction between the leader and his followers, that is, two-way influence. A comprehensive (integrative) understanding of political leadership implies an analysis of the entire set of variables that influence the nature and content of leadership, including: 1) the study of the leader’s personality, his origin, the process of socialization and the method of nomination;

2) analysis of the environment of the leader, his followers and opponents;

3) consideration of the relationship between the leader and followers;

4) research social conditions promotion to leadership;

5) analysis of the results of interaction between the leader and his supporters in specific situations. The sociological interpretation of the nature of leadership focuses more on the analysis of the interaction between the leader and his followers. It allows us to identify the technology of effective leadership and understand the logic of the leader’s political behavior.

6) Within the framework of the integrative approach, motivational concepts of leadership and theories that focus on the specifics of political styles have recently dominated. The latter direction allows us to identify the predictability of the actions of a political leader and their possible effectiveness.

“Political style” is a fairly capacious concept, the content of which includes a set of standard procedures for developing and making decisions, determining a political course and methods for its implementation, various ways of interaction between a leader and followers, types of response to emerging problems and the requirements of various population groups. The style of politics can be effective and ineffective, authoritarian and democratic, etc.

Effective leadership can be achieved using different political styles. A style focused on solving specific problems based on a clear distribution of roles and functions, the subordination of all resources to the solution of the task and the leader himself, and the fulfillment of all the requirements of a leader holding an official position is the basis of instrumental leadership.

However, the results of joint activities can be no less impressive if the leader does not occupy a leadership position, but influences, creating a favorable emotional environment in which each member of the group strives for the highest possible results. This political style underlies expressive (emotional) leadership. An example of this style is leadership Deng Xiaoping, the initiator of Chinese reforms, who left official posts long ago, but continues to remain an informal leader.

The effectiveness of leadership depends on the degree of coincidence of the motivations of the leader and his supporters, on the ability of the former to create incentives for the productive activities of the latter. The leader needs to know and clearly understand the attitudes and behavior of his followers, manifested in satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their work; approval or disapproval of its activities; motivation of one's own behavior. Knowledge of the motivation and behavioral attitudes of supporters allows the leader to determine the possible type of leadership behavior: either directive leadership, subordinating its supporters to the solution of a predetermined goal; or supportive leadership that stabilizes the behavior of its followers; or focused on achieving high-quality results from the activities of supporters through significant rewards for it.

So, despite the differences in the interpretation of leadership, in the understanding of its nature, it is considered as a constant, priority influence of the individual on society or a group. As already noted, this influence depends on a number of variables: on psychological personality traits, on the nature of the relationship between the leader and his supporters, on the motivation of leadership behavior and the behavior of his supporters. However, it is hardly possible to declare that the secret of leadership has been fully revealed. It is not yet clear, for example, how the “translation” of volitional influence occurs, why some ideas are perceived by people with readiness and enthusiasm, while others meet resistance, rejection or indifference? How is the leader’s decisions “sifted out,” some of which are recognized by individuals as legitimate in the moral and legal sense, while others are considered immoral?

Bureaucracy tends to degenerate into an oligarchy (Greek oligarchia - power of the few, from oligos - few and arche - power) - a form of government in which power belongs to a limited circle of people: the rich, the military, and officials. The first to discover and analyze such a pattern was the German sociologist, economist and historian, one of the founders of political sociology, R. Michels, who called this phenomenon the “iron law of oligarchy.” According to this law, democracy - in order to preserve itself and achieve stability - is forced to create organizations, which leads to the identification of an elite - an active minority in which the masses must trust, since they cannot exercise direct control over them. In a society dominated by large formal organizations, there is a great danger that sooner or later the entire totality of economic, political and social power will be concentrated in the hands of those who are at the helm. Thus, democracy will turn into an oligarchy.

Michels wrote about this: “Whoever speaks of organization speaks of oligarchy.” Democracy and large-scale formal organization are not antagonists, but two sides of the same phenomenon: They are not only compatible, but inevitably arise from one another. Michels comes to this, in the full sense of history, generalization by observing the party struggle in European countries, where at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Socialist parties quickly emerged, whose functionaries gradually changed their social status, turning into a ruling elsha, which led to the consolidation of positions and privileges, the irremovability of leaders, and their separation from the masses. Charismatic leaders who raised the masses to active political activity were replaced by bureaucrats, and revolutionaries and enthusiasts were replaced by conservatives and opportunists.

Individuals, Michels noted, take leadership positions because of their own unusual political qualities: they know how to achieve their goals and convince others of their importance. Once they obtain a high position, they constantly increase their prestige, power and influence. Thanks to this, they are able to control the flow of organizational information, directing them in a direction beneficial to themselves. Leaders have exaggerated motivation to maintain their own positions; they use all means in order, firstly, to convince other people of the correctness of their own view of things, and secondly, to legitimize it, to make it the norm. Finally, leaders promote young officials, but always from among their supporters. In this way, two goals are achieved - a mechanism for the reproduction of personnel is created and the theoretical doctrine of the leader is constantly strengthened.

The masses are gradually turning into fans of the leader. Their admiration gives an additional impetus to strengthening his personal power, which is now strong with support from below. Unlike a leader who spends all his time at work, ordinary members of the organization can devote only part of it to it. They trust the leader to make important decisions for them not only because he knows more than others, but also because he has earned it through his dedication to the common cause. The masses are ready not only to entrust the leader with solving political issues, but also to entrust their destiny to him.

At one time, M. Weber, with whom Michels was friends, noticed a similar trend, presenting it, however, differently. The movement towards a free society requires the bureaucratization of social institutions. In an industrial society, human freedom directly depends on the bureaucracy, which, on the one hand, “crushes” it under itself, and on the other, guarantees its inviolability. After all, the most reliable guarantor of human rights is the most bureaucratic system in the world - justice. It is what controls major decisions, breaking human destinies, protecting them from subjective arbitrariness.

Ultimately, numerous sets of laws and regulations, endlessly drawn out paperwork, clarification of the smallest details of a case, and compliance with the letter of the law protect a free society. In the same way, the system of free elections cannot do without the bureaucratic registration of electors at their place of residence, registration of lists, and careful verification.

This is how modern American society appears - a citadel of freedom and bureaucracy at the same time. But if democracy is impossible without a national bureaucracy, then it is necessary to make some adjustments to R. Michels’ theory, which would indicate that the principles of organization of a socialist party cannot be generalized to such an extent that they turn into universals that describe any society.

Several conclusions can be drawn from Michels’ concept, one of which was formulated by the Russian economist and sociologist R.V. Ryvkina: the stronger the concentration of will, the larger the apparatus that serves it. If out of many people one decides, he definitely needs helpers.

A huge staff of assistants is needed in the following cases:

♦ if the leader is not distinguished by intellectual abilities, he makes mistakes that assistants must compensate for;

♦ if the leader has selected mediocre assistants;

♦ if - due to duplication, lack of communication - the work is organized incorrectly;

♦ if the leader has removed himself from power and delegated decision-making to the apparatus;

♦ if the leader practices a bureaucratic management style and needs countless agreements, certificates, documents, etc.;

♦ if the leader keeps the “necessary” people in his apparatus, thus gaining the opportunity to give them special privileges and benefits;

♦ if assistants act as conductors of the leader’s will.

Only in the latter case is a so-called “team” formed - a group of like-minded people working not so much for remuneration as for an idea.

A different system of proving the inevitability of dividing society into a ruling minority and a passive majority was proposed by R. Michels (1876–1936), who became one of the ideologists of fascism and a friend of B. Mussolini. He tried to prove the impossibility of implementing the principles of democracy in Western countries due to the inherent properties of political organizations of these societies and “oligarchic tendencies” in mass political organizations - parties, trade unions. In his main work “Political Parties. An Essay on the Oligarchic Tendencies of Democracy" (1911), he analyzed the crisis of parliamentary democracy and substantiated the legitimacy of elitism.

R. Michels saw the reasons for political stratification (stratification) and therefore the impossibility of implementing democracy, firstly, in the essence of man, secondly, in the essence of political struggle, and thirdly, in the essence of organizations. Therefore, R. Michels concluded, democracy leads to oligarchy and turns into it.

The phenomenon of oligarchy, according to R. Michels, “is explained partly psychologically (the psychology of the masses and the psychology of organizations), partly organically (the laws of organizational structures),” with the main role played by the factors of the first group. The behavior of the ruling class in a democracy is largely determined by the influence of the “mass” on the political process. The concept of “mass” by R. Michels has a psychological content and is interpreted as a set of mental properties of the mass man in the street: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a feeling of gratitude to leaders, the need to honor leaders, etc. Therefore, the “masses” are not capable of self-organization and cannot manage on their own.

Among the groups vying for power within a parliamentary democracy, the most effective are those that secure support for their goals from the “organized masses.” However, the very “principle of organization,” which is a necessary condition for leading the “masses,” leads to the emergence of a hierarchy of power. Management of an organization requires the presence of people professionally trained for this, i.e., an apparatus. It gives stability to the organization, but at the same time causes the degeneration of the organized “mass”. The device completely changes the places of the leaders and the “mass”. The process of organization inevitably divides any party or trade union into a leading minority and a leading majority. The emerging “professional leadership” is becoming increasingly detached from the “masses” and tends to oppose itself to ordinary members. It forms a more or less closed inner circle, and seeks to consolidate power in its hands. The sovereignty of the masses turns out to be illusory. Thus, according to R. Michels, the “iron law of oligarchy” operates.

Consequently, the oligarchic structure of power is based not only on the tendency of the leaders to perpetuate themselves and strengthen their personal authority, but also, mainly, on the inertia of the masses, ready to rely on a few professional specialists, as well as on the structural properties of the political organization.

The political elite itself is, according to R. Michels, a product of the national psyche: the “elite character of the nation” strives to be embodied in the dominant groups. In the structure of the ruling class, he identified three independent elements: political, economic and intellectual. Each time, under certain historical conditions, real power can be exercised by a “political-economic,” “political-intellectual,” or “strong-willed political class.” The crisis of the institutions of parliamentary democracy in Italy and Germany in the 1920s brought the “strong-willed political class” to the forefront. The embodiment of the ideal of the “strong-willed class,” according to R. Michels, was Italian fascism led by B. Mussolini. Subsequently, R. Michels became an apologist for the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany.

Thus, the Italian school of political sociology made a significant contribution to the development of not only political science, but also other areas of social science (for example, philosophy of history, sociology, jurisprudence, social psychology, etc.). Subsequently, the concept of elitism gained both supporters and critics. Opponents pointed out its incompatibility with the ideas of democracy and self-government. They considered erroneous a theory that does not recognize the independent role of the individual in politics, the ability of the masses to influence power; criticized for excessive psychologism in the interpretation of the motives of political behavior and the causes of political inequality in society. However, followers of the concept of elitism deepened and developed the main provisions of the theory in new social conditions.

Robert Michels based on a study of the activities of political parties in Europe and their dependencies from the authorities, wrote a book: Sociology of a political party in modern democracy / Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Dernokratie, where he formulated the “iron law of oligarchy”, according to which “direct rule of the masses is technically impossible” and therefore any social organization - even if it begins with democracy - inevitably (!) degenerates into the power of a select few - an oligarchy.

“In the context of elitology, we will be most interested in main work R. Michels"The Sociology of Political Parties in Democracy", published in Leipzig in 1911. Here we note the scientist’s almost complete solidarity with the provisions already familiar to us that “society cannot exist without a ruling or political class,” and that the presence of such a class is “a constantly operating factor in social evolution.”

He quotes the thought with sympathy Rousseau that the mass, delegating its sovereignty, ceases to be sovereign. For him, to represent... means to pass off an individual will as a mass one. From here follows the most important starting point of his reasoning: “The mass is never ready for domination, but every individual included in it is capable of this if he has the necessary positive or negative qualities in order to rise above it and become a leader.” Even the most classless (if such a thing is possible) collectivist society of the future will need an elite.

Michels was convinced that the majority of humanity would never be capable of self-government, even if the discontented masses ever managed to deprive the ruling class of its power. And all because sooner or later, a new organized minority will necessarily appear among the masses themselves, which will take on the functions of the ruling class. And he makes a global conclusion: “the ruling class is the only factor of lasting importance in world history" This is pure elitism, and the author is a convinced elitist.

Michels's fame is also associated with the “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” he formulated. The essence of the law: democracy, in order to preserve itself and achieve a certain stability, is forced to create an organization, and this is associated with the identification of an elite - an active minority, which the masses have to trust due to the impossibility of its direct control over this minority. Therefore, democracy inevitably turns into oligarchy, and people, making a social revolution, run away from Scylla to get to Charybdis.

Thus, democracy faces an “insoluble contradiction”: firstly, it is “alien human nature"and, secondly, inevitably contains an oligarchic core."

Ashin G.K., Okhotsky E.V., Course of elitology, M., “Sportakadempress”, 1999, p. 41-42.