Why? What for?

Give a comparative description of the systems of recruiting political elites. Typology of elites and recruiting systems. Positive features of the entrepreneurial system

30.12.2021

Ways of formation of political elites

The main methods of elite formation are universal. In a more general form, they, in the form of aristocratic and democratic tendencies, were formulated by G. Mosca. The science of the modern period interprets them accordingly as:

  • entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) system;
  • guild system.

The guild system represents the gradual advancement of candidates up through the ranks of power. The sample is realized from certain parties or social groups. Recruiting itself has a closed and non-competitive character and is carried out by a rather narrow group of people.

Many formal requirements are put forward in relation to candidates, which are designed to confirm not so much their competence as their loyalty. Such a typology of the formation of the elite is characteristic of traditional societies, we are talking about the elite - the caste in ancient India, the elite - the aristocracy in medieval Europe.

In the twentieth century, the system of guilds manifested itself more clearly in totalitarian (for example, the elite - a party in the USSR), and authoritarian (for example, the elite - a corporation in Iran, Chile) states. Prolonged use of the guild system leads to the degeneration of the ruling group, to the loss of its ability to govern.

The entrepreneurial system is initially focused on the personal qualities of the candidate, on his ability to attract people's attention to himself, on the ability to prove his competence. With this system, the selection has an open, competitive nature, is implemented by a larger number of people, ideally - by the entire population through elections, and from groups that differ in their position.

This way of recruiting the elite, which is typical for modern democracies, is also not without drawbacks. The most important of them are:

  • the possibility of including random people in political life;
  • frequent change of course of policy due to the lack of unity in the views of different politicians;
  • the possibility of conflicts in the ruling elite itself.

Remark 1

The named methods of recruiting are reference. In reality, there is neither a pure entrepreneurial system, nor a pure guild system, since there are no completely open and closed societies.

On the one hand, any closed system presupposes the existence of channels that allow representatives of the "bottom" to break into power. As an example, one can refer to the party's role as a recruiting channel within the borders of the USSR. According to sociologists of national origin, in 1986, among the members of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the percentage of people from the lower strata reached ninety percent. On the other hand, any democratic (open) system is experiencing a continuous desire of elite groups to self-lock.

Throughout the twentieth century, democratic states were dominated by people from the highest social strata within the boundaries of the political elite. As noted by G.P. Artemov, in 1993, out of 435 members of the US House of Representatives, thirty-one percent were formed by businessmen, nineteen percent were professional politicians. The same groups of one hundred members of the Senate formed twenty-seven and twelve percent, respectively. It is obvious that the influx of representatives of low social strata into the elite in such a situation is more than difficult. Cases such as the promotion of Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a petty merchant, to a leading role in the British leadership seem more like rare exceptions than the rule.

The mechanism of formation of the political elite

There are two trends in the world space in the formation and production of the political elite. The first is typical for states with non-democratic regimes and is characterized by closeness, a thin social base of education, and a circle of people who make selections.

It is common for countries with low social mobility. The closed type of recruitment is the first in historical terms, therefore it is predominant in conservative societies.

The second tendency is typical for states of a democratic type and, accordingly, determines its widest range of social base, requires the highest political culture for its own functioning, which seems to be a consequence of the development of the political system. Although for states with democratic principles, the degree of openness can vary greatly.

Elite formation systems

There are the following systems for the formation of the political elite:

  1. An open system for the formation of a political elite, where dominant positions appear to be available to all groups of society, there is the highest competition for positions, and only those who have the most important qualities of leadership can reach the top;
  2. A closed system for the formation of a political elite, where the selection of candidates for the elite is made through a narrow circle of leaders and is complicated by many formal requirements, such as party membership, origin, length of service, etc.; this system is characteristic of non-democratic societies.

The Italian-born scientist Vilfredo Pareto separated the counter-elite - a group of people with exceptional leadership qualities who cannot be allowed to occupy leadership positions due to the closed nature of the social system. If the dominant elite begins to weaken, the counter-elite produces revolutionary transformations and, as a result, turns into the dominant political elite itself. The entire history of politics, according to Pareto, is a series of elites changing.

4. Elite recruitment systems

The systems of its recruitment (selection) have a great influence on the social representativeness, qualitative composition, professional competence and performance of the elite as a whole. These two terms were introduced into scientific circulation by the American political scientist B. Rocian. In their pure form, these two systems of elite recruitment are quite rare. The entrepreneurial system prevails in democratic states, the guild system - in countries with authoritarian regimes, although its elements are also widespread in the West, especially in the economy and the state-administrative sphere.

Each of these systems has its own specific features. The guild system is characterized by:

1) closeness, the selection of applicants for higher posts mainly from the lower strata of the elite itself, a slow, gradual path to the top. An example here is the complex bureaucratic ladder, which involves gradual advancement along the numerous steps of the service hierarchy;

2) a high degree of institutionalization of the selection process, the presence of numerous institutional filters - formal requirements for holding positions. These can be party affiliation, age, work experience, education, leadership characteristics, etc.;

3) a small, relatively closed circle of the selectorate. As a rule, it includes only members of a higher governing body or one first head - the head of the government, firms, etc.;

4) selection and appointment of personnel by a narrow circle of managers, lack of open competition;

5) the tendency to reproduce the existing type of elite. In essence, this feature follows from the previous ones - the presence of numerous formal requirements, appointment to a position by top management, as well as a long stay of the applicant in the ranks of this organization.

The guild system has its pros and cons. Among its strengths are the balance of decisions, the lower degree of risk in their adoption and the lower likelihood of internal conflicts, the greater predictability of policy. The main values ​​of this system are consensus, harmony and continuity. At the same time, the guild system is prone to bureaucratization, organizational routine, conservatism, the arbitrariness of the selectorate, and the substitution of formal selection criteria for informal ones.

The entrepreneurial system of recruiting elites is in many ways the opposite of the guild system. It is distinguished by:

1) openness, wide opportunities for representatives of any social groups to claim leadership positions;

2) a small number of formal requirements, institutional filters;

3) a wide range of electorate, which may include all the voters of the country;

4) high competitiveness of selection, sharpness of rivalry for occupying leadership positions;

5) the variability of the composition of the elite, the paramount importance for this of personal qualities, individual activity, the ability to find support from a wide audience, to captivate it with attractive ideas and programs.

The entrepreneurial system, more than the guild system, appreciates outstanding people, it is more open to young leaders and innovations. At the same time, certain disadvantages of its use are the relatively high risk and unprofessionalism in politics, the relatively weak predictability of politics, and the tendency of leaders to be overly fond of external effects.

Thus, recruiting systems determine: who, how and from whom selects, what are its procedures and criteria, the circle of the selectorate (persons carrying out the selection) and the motives for its actions. There are two main systems for recruiting elites: guilds and entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial).


Conclusion

The elite embraces the most influential circles and groupings of the economically and politically dominant class. These are people who have concentrated in their hands huge material resources, mass media, technical and organizational means.

“The role of the elite in society, in management, the economy, etc. reflects its functions:

1) elites play a crucial role in determining the political will of a social group, their class, and in developing mechanisms for the implementation of this will;

2) the elites are called upon to form the political goals of their group, class, their program documents;

3) elites regulate the activities of the political representation of a group, class, dosing support, strengthening or limiting it;

4) the elites are the main reserve of leading cadres, the center for the recruitment and placement of leaders in various sectors of political and state administration.

In general, over the past decade, the Russian elite has undergone significant changes. The place of the monolith of the nomenklatura pyramid was occupied by numerous elite groupings that are in competition with each other. The elite has lost much of the leverage of power that the old ruling class had. Under these conditions, the role of economic factors in the management of society has increased. Instead of a stable ruling class with strong vertical ties between its floors, many dynamic elite groups have been created, among which horizontal and informal ties have developed.

The groups that make up the current elite are loose and amorphous, they are torn apart by sharp contradictions. There is fierce competition between the groups themselves. The alignment of forces that has developed within the elite does not allow any of them to occupy a dominant position.

The weakness of the Russian elite is also manifested in its lack of a long-term program of reforms, in its attempts to mechanically transfer the basic values ​​of liberalism onto domestic soil. In domestic conditions, these values ​​are often distorted beyond recognition: individualism is transformed into unbridled egoism, freedom - into irresponsibility and arbitrariness, competition.

The current state of the Russian elite suggests that the process of its formation has not yet been completed. It does not possess such properties necessary for the ruling elite as relative cohesion, integrity and unity. Most of its constituent groups do not have any broad social base, and the tendency towards the closeness and isolation of the elite is increasing.

If we analyze today's elite, it can be noted that the upper echelons of power are generally characterized by looseness and disunity. The common basis that binds the various groups of elites is very weak and, in addition, there is a struggle between them for sole domination in the upper echelon of power.

One of the most important reasons for the weakness of the political elite is the lack of broad socio-political support for most of its constituent groups.

Therefore, they and the elite as a whole are almost deprived of the opportunity to use the broad and organized support of the public masses.


Bibliography

1. Borishpolets K.P. Political science. Prospect (TK Velby), 2009.

2. Vasilyeva L.N. Theory of elites (synergetic approach)//ONS. 2005. N4.

3.Gaman-Golutvina O.V. Definition of the basic concepts of elitology // Polis. 2000. N3.

4. Gryaznova A.G., Eskindarov M.A. Political science. - Infra-M, 2007.

5. Lyubchenkov Yu.N. Political leadership as a technology // Bulletin of the Moscow University. Ser. 16. Sociology and political science. 2005. N1.

6. Kodin M.I. Socio-political associations and the formation of the political elite in Russia (1990-2005). M., 2005.

7. Kravchenko A.I. Fundamentals of sociology and political science. - Prospectus, TK Welby, 2008.

8.Kryshtanovskaya O.V. Anatomy of the Russian elite. M., 2005.

9. Ponedelkov A. Party elites and party building in Russia // Obozrevatel - Observer. 2004. No. 5.


Power cannot be concentrated in one center. The political elite is relatively independent, although it has extensive ties with the economic elite. The political elite in relation to the existing system of power is divided into the actual ruling and the opposition (counter-elite). On a functional basis, the political elite can be divided into the actual political, ...

Life built on the Orthodox worldview. 4.1 FROM Zemsky Sobors to the State Duma During this period of 200 years, in my opinion, there were only two moments in the history of representative bodies of power that are worth paying attention to. This is the convening of the established commission under Catherine II and the project of Speransky. In the context of declaring the significance of the ideas of enlightenment for the state...

Different countries have developed different selection systems ( recruiting ) political elite. The most common are two systems of recruiting the elite - entrepreneurial and guild.

Entrepreneurskaya (entrepreneurial)system is an open system. The selection of candidates for the elite is carried out according to purely personal qualities, according to the ability to please people. The property status, professional competence, level and specialization of the candidate's education do not matter much. Number filters- requirements for the candidate - limited. A sharp competitive struggle of candidates is expected, in which each of them must show high activity, ingenuity and resourcefulness. Selection of candidates for the elite ( selection) is carried out by the entire adult population of the country - therefore, it is all selectorate. The entrepreneurial system is common in stable democracies. It is well adapted to the requirements of the moment. According to such a system in the United States in 1980, R. Reagan, the governor of California, was elected president - a former actor who was neither a professional politician, nor a political scientist, nor an economist, nor a lawyer. However, later the majority of the US population rated this choice as the right one. The weakness of the entrepreneurial system lies in the fact that it often opens the door to politics and power to absolutely random persons, "people of the moment", adventurers, demagogues, masters of external effect. The behavior of individuals selected for the elite is difficult to predict. The elite recruited by this method is heterogeneous and can be internally conflicted.

Guild system is a closed system of recruiting the political elite. A candidate for the elite slowly, step by step (sometimes throughout his life) moves "up" the "steps of power". The applicant is presented with a wide variety of complex requirements ( filters): the level and specialization of education, professional competence, work experience (sometimes party experience), experience in working with people, experience in leadership ("political experience"). Elite candidates are usually selected from certain social groups or certain political parties. Cast selectorate a narrow circle of leading officials of the apparatus (corporations, parties, movements) speaks. Ultimately, such a selectorate, represented by the next candidate, “reproduces itself” and replenishes its ranks with a member adequate to this circle. The guild recruiting system is conservative, non-competitive, and non-adversarial. For a long time it reproduces the same type of leaders. As a result, the elite turns into a closed one-faced caste, which gradually degrades, degenerates and dies out. However, at a certain stage, such a system ensures a certain stability and continuity of the political course. Decisions of the elite are easily predictable, intra-elite conflicts are reduced (or camouflaged by external “unanimity”).

A special kind of guild system is nomenclature system , widespread in the socialist countries. Under this system, all key government posts were held by party nomenklatura . As a result, the Marxist-Leninists, who verbally condemned all elitism, in fact created the most conservative, most stagnant and most regressive form of elitism. Yugoslav politician and sociologist of the mid-twentieth century. M. Djilas noted that the Soviet nomenklatura elite had the most rigid hierarchy. In it, as in the "Table of Ranks" of Peter I, all nomenklatura positions were divided into 14 ranks. At the head of the nomenclature "pyramid" was the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, followed by members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, below were candidates for members of the Politburo, even lower were the secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee, etc. The applicant all his life climbed to the top of the "pyramid" along a very long and complex stairs. No wonder that its "top" was occupied by 70-80-year-old elders ( gerontocracy). The system instilled personal allegiance from lower leaders to "leaders" and higher leaders, servility and ostentatious activism. Talented and independent individuals were not allowed into its ranks - submissive, disciplined mediocrity prevailed. By the beginning of the Soviet “perestroika” (mid-1980s), the natural (physical), intellectual and moral degeneration of the decrepit Soviet nomenklatura became completely obvious, and its departure from the political arena of the country was inevitable and without alternative.

The system of its recruitment (selection) has a great influence on the social representativeness, qualitative composition, professionalism, competence and effectiveness of the elite as a whole. Such systems determine who, how and from whom selects, what are its procedures and criteria, the circle of the selectorate (persons carrying out the selection) and the motives for its actions.

Among scientists there are different thoughts about the ways of formation of elites. G.Moska focuses on the specific historical nature of these paths: in the Middle Ages, the reason for belonging to the elite was military courage, in a “well-organized society” - wealth, origin, in the 20th century. - Outstanding ability.

K.Manheim identified three ways to join the elite: on the principle of blood, wealth, personal professional and spiritual productivity. D.Bell believes that the “blood elite” corresponds to pre-industrial society, the “wealth elite” to industrial society, and the “knowledge elite” (scientific and technical elite) to post-industrial society.

There are two main systems for recruiting elites: guilds and entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial). They are rare in their pure form. The entrepreneurial system prevails in democratic states, the guild system - in the countries of command-administrative socialism, although its elements are widespread in the West, especially in the economy and the state-administrative sphere.

Each of these systems has its own specific features. So for guild systems characteristic:

closeness, selection of applicants for higher positions mainly from the lower strata of the elite itself, a gradual path to the top;

the presence of numerous institutional filters - formal requirements for holding positions - party membership, age, work experience, education, leadership characteristics, etc.;

a small, closed circle of the selectorate (it includes only members of the higher governing body or one first leader);

co-optation (re-election, introduction of new members to the elective collegiate body, decision of the body itself without appeal to voters), appointment from above as the main way to occupy leadership positions;

tendency to reproduce the existing type of elite.

Entrepreneurial system recruiting elites has the following features: openness, a representative of any social group has the opportunity to claim a leading position;

a small number of formal requirements;

a wide range of electorate, which can be all the voters of the country;

high competitive selection;

paramount importance for entering the elite of personal qualities, individual activity.



Positive features of the guild system:

- balanced and balanced political decisions, an insignificant degree of risk in their adoption;

High policy predictability;

Low probability of internal conflicts;

Consensus, harmony and continuity.

Negative Traits:

- a pronounced tendency towards bureaucratization, dogmatism, conservatism;

Cultivation of mass conformism;

The degeneration of the political elite, its separation from the people.

Positive features of the entrepreneurial system:

- openness, wide opportunities for representatives of any social groups to apply for entry into the elite;

A small number of formal requirements for candidates;

High selection competition, sharp rivalry;

High importance of personal qualities.

Negative Traits:

The system brings with it great risk and unprofessionalism in politics;

Low predictability in politics;

Excessive passion for leaders external effect and populism.

In the United States, "elite" and "power class" are called establishment, and in the former USSR - nomenclature. The essence of the nomenklatura system is the appointment of persons to leadership positions only with the consent and on the recommendation of higher bodies. The Soviet elite had certain privileges. Discipline, service zeal, devotion were highly valued in nomenklatura circles and were prerequisites for the career growth of various kinds of leaders. During the years of the Great Patriotic War and post-war reconstruction, the Soviet party nomenklatura for the most part worked in the interests of the state and the people. But in the 60s and 70s the third generation of nomenklatura officials comes to power, consisting mainly of children and relatives of the authorities. A new society closed from the people - the nomenklatura elite - was formed. The ruling Soviet elite was no longer satisfied with the position of servants of the people. She wanted to become the real owner of all the material wealth of the state. Therefore, in 1980, a significant part of the nomenklatura began to be burdened by the Soviet ideology and their own state. Perestroika and subsequent reforms were attempts by the majority of the nomenclature to peacefully change the existing socio-political system with the help of the West, while retaining the highest political power and appropriated the material wealth of the country. After the collapse of the USSR and the privatization of state property, a new composition of owners was formed, amounting to about 3% of the population. Most of this layer (80%) was formed by the former nomenklatura. The structure of the new owners also included the businessmen of the shadow economy and criminal elements.

The modern reality of Ukrainian society is that a small minority has seized state property, created by the labor of many generations, and appropriates all the income from it. Entire sectors of the economy are divided between large monopolies - the oligarchs, and the people are completely excluded from participation in the distribution of the country's national wealth and put on the brink of survival. Currently, there is no single ideology and generally recognized ideals. Attempts by the ruling elite to mechanically transfer the Western European ideology of liberalism to domestic soil have not yet been successful.

The appearance of the current Ukrainian elite is rather motley. It includes business executives and government officials, businessmen, humanitarian intelligentsia, leaders of political parties. A characteristic feature of the Ukrainian elite is not only ideological differences between its various factions, but also the presence of significant regional differences. Ukraine is characterized by a mixed system of reproduction of the political elite. Often, it is not professional qualities that are decisive in moving up, but personal connections. The country has not developed a real multi-party system, a system of opposition to the ruling power, which would prevent the concentration of political power in the hands of the ruling elite. The country does not yet have independent mass media capable of guaranteeing transparency and openness of the political process. The political culture of the population remains predominantly emotional in nature.

The future will show whether the modern ruling elite will be able to create a new holistic policy of values ​​and ideals that could unite society and mobilize the people to achieve common goals.

The systems of its recruitment (selection) have a great influence on the social representativeness, qualitative composition, professional competence and performance of the elite as a whole. Such systems determine: who, how and from whom selects, what are its procedures and criteria, the circle of the selectorate (persons carrying out the selection) and the motives for its actions.

There are two main systems for recruiting elites: guilds and entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial). In their pure form, they are quite rare. The entrepreneurial system prevails in democratic states, the guild system - in the countries of administrative socialism, although its elements are also widespread in the West, especially in the economy and the state-administrative sphere.

Each of these systems has its own specific features. So, the guild system is characterized by:

  • 1) closeness, the selection of applicants for higher posts mainly from the lower strata of the elite itself, a slow, gradual path to the top. An example here is the complex bureaucratic ladder, which involves gradual advancement along the numerous steps of the service hierarchy;
  • 2) a high degree of institutionalization of the selection process, the presence of numerous institutional filters - formal requirements for holding positions. These can be party affiliation, age, work experience, education, leadership characteristics, etc.;
  • 3) a small, relatively closed circle of the selectorate. As a rule, it includes only members of a higher governing body or one first head - the head of the government, firms, etc.;
  • 4) selection and appointment of personnel by a narrow circle of managers, lack of open competition;
  • 5) the tendency to reproduce the existing type of elite. In essence, this feature follows from the previous ones - the presence of numerous formal requirements, appointment to a position by top management, as well as a long stay of the applicant in the ranks of this organization.

The entrepreneurial system of recruiting elites is in many respects the opposite of the guild system, it is distinguished by: 1) openness, wide opportunities for representatives of any social groups to claim leadership positions; 2) a small number of formal requirements, institutional filters; 3) a wide range of electorate, which may include all the voters of the country; 4) high competitiveness of selection, sharpness of rivalry for occupying leadership positions; 5) the variability of the composition of the elite, the paramount importance for this of personal qualities, individual activity, the ability to find support from a wide audience, to captivate it with attractive ideas and programs.

This system values ​​outstanding people more. It is open to young leaders and innovations. At the same time, certain disadvantages of using it are the relatively high risk and unprofessionalism in politics, the relatively weak predictability of politics, and the tendency of leaders to be overly fond of externalities. In general, as practice shows, the entrepreneurial system of recruiting elites is well adapted to the dynamism of modern life.

The guild system also has its pros and cons. Among its strengths are the balance of decisions, the lower degree of risk in their adoption and the lower likelihood of internal conflicts, the greater predictability of policy. The main values ​​of this system are consensus, harmony and continuity. At the same time, the guild system is prone to bureaucratization, organizational routine, conservatism, the arbitrariness of the selectorate, and the substitution of formal selection criteria for informal ones. It breeds mass conformity and makes it difficult to correct mistakes and eliminate shortcomings initiated from below. Without the addition of competitive mechanisms, this system leads to the gradual degeneration of the elite, its separation from society and its transformation into a privileged caste.