The political elite has its own structure. The elite itself by status includes the president and vice-president of the country, members of the presidential council, leaders of representative authorities and deputies, the prime minister and his deputies, ministers, heads of administration and chairmen of representative authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation, heads of diplomatic missions abroad, the highest stratum military officials, leaders of political parties and social movements, heads of leading media. There are about two thousand such people in our country. This is the ruling elite - the elite in the narrow sense of the word. By analogy, one can define the elite circle at the level of a region, region or republic. The regional political elite, the main component of which is representatives of the local deputy corps and persons occupying senior administrative positions, according to the methodology outlined above, numbers 150-200 people.

In modern Western industrialized countries, the ruling elites are reproduced mainly at the expense of representatives of the upper classes or upper middle class. The economic, political and cultural capital at their disposal gives them a better chance of being promoted to public office than those from working and lower class backgrounds.

During the Soviet period of Russian history, the ruling elite was recruited mainly from representatives of the lower classes (poor peasants and unskilled workers). The elite of modern Russia was formed mainly from representatives of the younger generation of the former Soviet nomenklatura (leaders of party, Soviet, trade union, Komsomol bodies, as well as directors of enterprises).

The new generation of the Russian political elite consists mainly of people with fairly high economic, political and cultural capital, prepared for professional political activity and seeking to engage in it on a permanent basis.

An important structural link of the elite layer is near-elite environment– the closest assistants of those who actually make politics. These are advisers and consultants of various ranks and profiles, members of councils, commissions and working groups, authoritative lawyers, publicists, scientists, writers and artists - primarily those who make up, as they now say, the leadership team, those who, while in public service , holds Group B positions. These people play the role of a kind of managers who, although they do not occupy key government positions in the relevant government structures, are nevertheless invested with sufficient powers and real informal opportunities to influence the decision-making process.

They, no less than their “patrons,” have access to the real levers of power and through this they perform many managerial functions, play a kind of integrating role between politicians, business managers, leaders of the spiritual sphere and commanders of the military-industrial complex, and heads of the media. . It is through these people that senior officials and political leaders “come into contact” with parliamentarians, the most influential persons abroad, and heads of various public and private organizations.

The following groups of the Russian ruling elite are represented in the Federal Assembly: leaders of the most influential parties and movements, regional leaders, state administration employees, and entrepreneurs. The remaining groups of the ruling elite are concentrated in the government and the Presidential Administration.

Ways to legitimize (form) the political elite:

1) elections of government bodies, implementation of the idea of ​​representation

2) groups (Putin’s St. Petersburg group)

3) family ties

4) professionalism

Functions of the political ruling elite:

Engaged in the development of a state course. This is her prerogative, a powerful resource (administrative resource).

Implementation of the state policy through appropriate tools. Together with the bureaucracy, using it as a management tool, the elite implements a political course. This is the main function of the ruling elite: control by managers, i.e. political leadership of government officials, starting from the government and ending with the administration of settlements, districts and state-owned enterprises

Control function

Integrative function (unites society based on moral criteria)

Social monitoring function. The ruling elite ensures the stability of the functioning of the political system.

Recruitment function for political leaders

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Vainberg Alexander Vladelenovich. Legitimation and delegitimation of elected government in modern Russia: Dis. ...cand. legal Sciences: 12.00.01: N. Novgorod, 2003 168 p. RSL OD, 61:04-12/364

Introduction

CHAPTER 1. The concept and methods of legitimizing state power

1. The concept of legitimation and delegitimation of state power 10

2. Ways to legitimize state power 35

CHAPTER 2. Elections as a way of legal legitimation of state power

1. The concept of elections 50

2. Election principles underlying the legitimation of state power 70

CHAPTER 3. Legal problems of ensuring electoral legitimation of state power

1. Problems of legal regulation of the electoral legitimation of state power 101

2. Responsibility for election offenses as a means of combating the delegitimation of state power 114

Conclusion 149

List of used literature

Introduction to the work

Relevance of the dissertation research topic. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people. Recognition of the people as the only source of power and bearer of sovereignty is an integral feature of any democratic state with a republican form of government. However, the objective impossibility of direct, immediate rule in modern society actualizes the problem of legitimation of state power or, in other words, the problem of delegation, vesting power in state bodies. This task is solved through elections, which, along with a referendum, are recognized as the highest direct expression of the power of the people.

Emphasizing the importance of the elections N.I. Lazarevsky wrote: “electivity... is a fact of enormous practical importance; it largely determines the place of popular representation among other state institutions and its vital significance. Election creates a close moral connection between parliament and the people and is the source of political strength of popular representation. Then, the election of popular representation creates its complete independence from the bureaucratic mechanism. Finally, election creates an independent position for the bodies of popular representation.” Elections should make adjustments to the behavior of the highest institutions of legislative and executive power, and the entire system of representative government. Unfortunately, this does not always happen. The transitional state of Russian statehood weakens the forms of feedback between elected representatives of the people and voters, often taking them out of the control of the latter. To date, a sufficiently effective electoral system has not been created in the Russian Federation. It is in a state of permanent reform, the ultimate goal of which should be the creation of a system that would guarantee stability and continuity in the activities of elected institutions. In the conditions of the formation of a democratic rule of law state in the Russian Federation, based on a republican form of government and separation of powers, the institution of elections should turn into a real mechanism for the implementation of direct democracy, a form of realization of the political interests of citizens, their determination of the form and content of the activities of public authorities, a method of legitimation.

In view of the above, the study of the processes of legitimation and delegitimation of elected government in Russia is one of the urgent tasks of the theory of state and law, which guided the author when choosing the topic of the dissertation.

Degree of scientific development. Problems of legitimation of state power in general have always been in the field of view of domestic and foreign scientific thought.

Within the framework of political science, the works of foreign scientists D. Beetham, M. Weber, B. Westle, J.-M. are devoted to their study. Denken, D. Easton, S. Lipset, R. Merelman, P. Merlot, J.-L. Shabo and others. In domestic political science, the issues of legitimation of state power were studied by L.G. Avrutina, A.S. Avtonomov, A.I. Demidov, V.A. Dudakov, SM. Eliseev, K.F. Zavershinsky, S.A. Lantsov, S.A. Martynov, V.D. Polishchuk, A.M. Fedorova, A.G. Unpelev, O.A. Shirokov and others.

The problems of legitimizing state power worried both domestic pre-revolutionary philosophers, thinkers N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, I.A. Ilyin, B.N. Chicherin and modern ones - A.M. Drozdov, A.V. Ter-Ghazaryan and others.

In political sociology, issues of legitimation of power were studied by E.A. Borzunova, P. Bourdieu, V.G. Ignatov, R. Strike and others.

In legal science today there are no comprehensive monographic studies of elections as the most important way of legitimizing and legalizing state power. At the same time, certain issues related in one way or another to this issue were studied by V.I. Avdiyskiy, L.G. Alekhicheva, P.A. Astafichev, V.K. Babaev, V.M. Baranov, A.V. Ivanchenko, V.V. Ignatenko, S.D. Knyazev, V.N. Kartashov, A.I. Kovler, K.V. Krasnov, SM. Kremenetsky, V.I. Lysenko, A.P. Lyubimov, A.V. Malko, N.I. Matuzov, M.V Maslovskaya, Yu.A. Novikov, A.E. Postnikov, N.R. Putkaradze, A.H. Ruppel, A.A. Smolyanov, V.E. Chirkin, SV. Yusov and others.

The object of the study is social relations developing in the sphere of legitimation and delegitimation of state power.

The subject of the study is: the legitimation of state power in Russia; delegitimation of state power in Russia; elections as the most important way of legal legitimation of state power.

Purpose and objectives of the study. This work aims to comprehensively, from the standpoint of a systematic approach, explore and characterize the processes of legitimation and delegitimation of elected government in Russia, as well as develop scientifically based recommendations to counteract its delegitimation.

Achieving this goal involves solving the following tasks:

Study, generalization and analysis of available theoretical and empirical material on this issue, taking into account the development trends of Russian society and the state;

Rethinking the traditional doctrine of the legitimation of state power, taking into account broad and narrow (normative) approaches to legal understanding;

Determining the relationship between the concepts of legitimation and legalization; delegitimation and delegitimation; legitimacy and legality; delegitimacy and illegitimacy;

Study of the principles of elections underlying the legitimation of state power;

Analysis of problems of legal regulation of electoral legitimation of state power;

Analysis of factors of delegitimation of state power in Russia;

Development of proposals to increase the effectiveness of liability for violation of election legislation as a means of combating the delegitimation of state power.

The methodological basis of the dissertation research is the dialectical-materialistic method of cognition of objective reality and general scientific and special scientific methods based on it (analysis, synthesis, generalization, induction, deduction, logical, sociological, statistical, system-structural, comparative legal, as well as methods of observation and modeling).

The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the research of domestic and foreign scientists - philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, lawyers (specialists in the field of theory of state and law, constitutional law) and representatives of other fields of knowledge.

Empirical basis of the study. The author analyzed the Constitution of the Russian Federation, international treaties of the Russian Federation, federal laws, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation, regulations of federal executive authorities, constitutions (charters) and other acts of government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation regulating electoral relations.

The scientific novelty of the dissertation is determined both by the choice of topic and the approach to its research, taking into account the degree of development of individual aspects.

In this work, for the first time in the theory of state and law, a comprehensive general theoretical analysis of the legitimation and delegitimation of elected state power has been carried out.

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. It is necessary to very clearly distinguish between two approaches to defining the concept of legitimation of state power: broad and narrow.

Legitimation of state power in a broad sense is a process as a result of which a social relationship arises between the holders of power and the ruled, characterized by the latter’s recognition of the power as justified and legitimate.

2. From the point of view of a narrow approach, legitimation and legalization are one and the same thing, synonyms. Legal legitimation (legalization) of state power is the activity of citizens, public authorities, their officials, as well as public associations regulated by law for the legal certification (legitimation) of the state bodies and officials they institutionalize.

3. Delegitimation of state power in a broad sense is the process of loss of recognition of power. In a narrow sense, this is the delegalization of state power, i.e. the process of loss of legal character by state power.

4. The method of legitimizing state power is a set of homogeneous techniques used by the holders of power and those under power in order to create a social relationship between them, characterized by the recognition of power as justified and legitimate. This is how power is justified, how it acquires the properties of legitimacy and legality.

5. In the context of two main approaches to legal understanding (normative and broad), it is methodologically important to divide the methods of legitimizing state power into two groups: 1) methods of recognition of power by the people (traditional, charismatic, rational-legal) and 2) methods of legalizing power (inheritance, appointment , by position, in turn, by lot, co-optation and, most importantly, elections).

6. Elections are one of the most important ways of legal legitimation of state power, which consists in vesting the people (population) of their individual representatives with power, as well as the activities of citizens, public associations, state bodies and local governments in compiling voter lists, nomination and registration candidates, voting and summing up its results, and conducting other electoral actions.

7. At the federal level, there is a need to adopt an Electoral Code that would regulate the procedure for electing the President of the Russian Federation and deputies of the State Duma, and also establish a framework for the legislative process in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to adopt separate legislative acts on elections instead of codes.

9. Proposals for improving Russian legislation and optimizing the activities of government bodies.

The theoretical and practical significance of the conducted research is determined by its relevance, novelty and conclusions of both general theoretical and practical nature. The dissertation materials expand scientific understanding of the processes of legitimation and delegitimation of state power in Russia; about elections as the most important way of legal legitimation of state power. The theoretical provisions and conclusions formulated in it develop and complement individual sections of the theory of state and law and branch legal sciences. They can serve as methodological and theoretical premises for industrial research in legal science.

The study also made it possible to make a number of proposals for improving Russian legislation and optimizing the activities of government bodies.

The main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation can be used:

In research activities in the analysis of current problems of the functioning of state power;

In the process of updating Russian legislation;

When preparing lectures, textbooks, and other educational and methodological literature on certain sections of the theory of state and law, constitutional law, political science, sociology and other academic disciplines.

In the practical activities of public authorities and their officials.

Approbation of research results. The dissertation was discussed and approved at the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. The main provisions are reflected in publications on the topic of the study. Research materials are used in preparing lectures and conducting seminars.

The structure of the dissertation is subject to the logic of the research and consists of an introduction, three chapters containing six paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.

The concept of legitimation and delegitimation of state power

When analyzing the concept of legitimation of state power and a number of related concepts, it is necessary to take into account a number of important methodological provisions.

1. In various sciences (sociology, political science, psychology, etc.), these categories are analyzed from the perspective of the subject and the categorical apparatus of the corresponding sciences.

2. Knowledge about the analyzed phenomena obtained in various sciences cannot be automatically used in jurisprudence.

3. When studying the legitimation of state power within the framework of the theory of state and law, we need our own approach, which would reflect the specifics of its subject and methods and would serve as a methodological basis for other branch legal sciences.

4. This approach should clearly define the relationship between such concepts as legitimation, legalization, legitimacy and legality - on the one hand, and delegitimation, delegalization, illegitimacy and illegality - on the other.

Show their similarities and differences. Let's try to formulate and justify this approach.

Currently, the term “legitimation” is quite actively used in various humanities (philosophy, political science, sociology, jurisprudence and others), each of which fills the category in question with special semantic content. As a result, we have, at a minimum, a dualism in the understanding of legitimation, which, while acceptable in principle, nevertheless invariably gives rise to difficulties of both epistemological and practical nature. Every time it arises

the need to clarify in which of two or more senses a given term is used in a particular context.

This problem manifests itself most acutely in jurisprudence, within which special requirements are imposed on the certainty of the categorical apparatus. Therefore, from the standpoint of methodology, first of all, it is necessary to define the concept of legitimation and its relationship with related categories.

Legitimation and legalization. From an etymological point of view, legitimation (from the Latin legitimus - legal, lawful) means “legitimation”.

In reference literature, the term “legitimation” is used not only in relation to state (or political in general) power. Thus, according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, legitimation is “(from the Latin legitimus - legal, lawful), 1) in bourgeois states where there is no passport system, a form of citizen identification. It consists in the fact that, at the request of the competent authorities, a citizen is obliged to present documents proving his identity; 2) in bourgeois civil law, proof of a citizen’s rights to receive payment, perform any actions, etc. (for example, a license to use a patent)”2.

According to the Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, legitimation is “the assertion of authority, legal capacity; Legitimation certificate is a document confirming this right.”3.

The subject of our research is the legitimation of state power, the concept of which there are many definitions in the scientific literature (legal, political science and sociological).

So, according to E.A. Borzunova, the legitimation of state power is “the social relationship that arises between managers and the governed... regarding the origin, use and subordination of power”4.

A.I. Demidov and A.V. Malko understands the legitimation of state power as ensuring its recognition and approval by those in power5.

V.E. Chirkin understands the legitimation of state power as “the process, not necessarily formal and even most often informal, through which state power acquires the property of legitimacy, i.e. a state that expresses the correctness, justification, expediency, legality and other aspects of compliance of a specific state power with the attitudes and expectations of the individual, social and other groups, and society as a whole”6.

Close to the above is the definition formulated by L.G. Avrutina: “by legitimation we understand the process through which a certain social system, social system, state, political power, its structures acquire the property of legitimacy, a very complex property in its meaning, expressing correctness, justification, regularity, legality, legality. If we talk about state power, then legitimation is the process of recognizing power as justified and legitimate. On the part of those to whom this power extends. Legitimation affirms politics and power, explains and justifies political decisions, the creation of political structures, their change, renewal, etc.”7.

From our point of view, two approaches to defining the concept of legitimation of state power can be distinguished: broad and narrow.

The broad approach owes its appearance to the research of sociologists and political scientists, primarily the German scientist Max Weber. From the point of view of this approach, the concept of legitimation of state power includes two elements: political (recognition of power) and legal (its legitimation). In this case, the first one is the main one, and the second one is optional. Thus, legitimation here is a process not so much of legitimation as of recognition of power. A broad approach is characteristic not only of representatives of political science and sociology, but also of jurisprudence. So, V.E. Chirkin writes that “legitimation may have nothing to do with the law, and sometimes even contradict it. This is a process, not necessarily formal and even most often informal, through which state power acquires the property of legitimacy, i.e. a state that expresses the correctness, justification, expediency, legality and other aspects of the compliance of a specific state power with the attitudes and expectations of the individual, social and other groups, and society as a whole. Recognition of state power and its actions as legitimate is based on sensory perception, experience, and rational assessment. It is based not on external signs (although, for example, the oratorical abilities of leaders can have a significant impact on the public, contributing to the establishment of charismatic power), but on internal motivations, internal incentives. The legitimation of state power is not associated with the publication of a law, the adoption of a constitution (although this may also be part of the process of legitimation), but with a complex of experiences and internal attitudes of people, with the ideas of various segments of the population about the observance by state power and its bodies of the norms of social justice, human rights, their protection."8

Ways to legitimize state power

In reference literature, the method is understood as “1. A course of action, technique, method for carrying out, achieving something; 2. Opportunity, means, real conditions for the implementation of something.”51.

The concept of a method of legitimizing state power is not defined in the scientific literature. From our point of view, the method of legitimizing state power should be understood as a set of homogeneous techniques used by the holders of power and those under power in order to create a social relationship between them, characterized by the recognition of power as justified and legitimate. This is how power is justified, how it gains legitimacy.

Methods of legitimizing state power can be classified on various grounds.

Thus, from the point of view of the political regime, one can distinguish democratic (for example, elections) and non-democratic (ideology in an authoritarian regime, corruption, etc.) methods.

Depending on the type of socio-economic formation, one can distinguish ways to legitimize state power under the conditions of a feudal, capitalist and socialist system. Feudal society is characterized by traditional and theological methods, capitalist - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal, socialist - ideological and charismatic methods of legitimizing state power.

By object, one should distinguish between methods of legitimizing government bodies (for example, co-optation) and methods of legitimizing officials (for example, inheritance).

Methods of legitimizing state power can be classified on other grounds.

There are several points of view regarding the list of ways to legitimize state power. So, L.A. Andreeva believes that religious and quasi-religious doctrines, in particular Orthodoxy, can act as a way to legitimize power52. A. Levandovsky believes that myth can be a means of legitimizing power in Russia53. V. Rimsky writes that such a means is public opinion54. Some authors include ideology as a means of legitimizing state power55.

However, M. Weber developed the most complete, deep and comprehensive theory of ways to legitimize state power. He identified three main ways of legitimizing state power (and depending on them, three types of its legitimacy): traditional, charismatic and rational-legal methods of legitimation56.

Recognizing the general validity of this approach of the famous sociologist, it should be noted that from the standpoint of jurisprudence, in the context of two main approaches to legal understanding (normative and broad), it is methodologically important to divide the methods of legitimizing state power into two groups: 1) methods of recognition of power by the people and 2) methods legalization of power. Let's consider the first group of methods.

The traditional method is based on the belief in the sacredness of the ancient order and patriarchal dominance, characteristic of pre-bourgeois social systems and similar in structure to the structure of the family. M. Weber saw this as the reason why this type of legitimacy is especially strong and stable. This explains why M. Weber considered it highly desirable for the legal social order to retain a hereditary monarch as the head of state, as is the case in Great Britain and some other European countries.

With this method of legitimating state power, its basis is the tradition of succession to the throne. For example, in the Russian state, as noted by V.O. Klyuchevsky, such personalities as B. Godunov, V. Shuisky were incomparably more significant and incomparable with the figure of 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov. The main thing was that Tsar Mikhail established himself on the throne not so much because he was the zemstvo popular choice, but because he was the nephew of the last king of the previous dynasty57.

As rightly noted by A.G. Avrutin, relying mainly on tradition is the reason for the limitations of the traditional way of legitimizing state power. The actions of the tsar, which contradict popular ideas about the tsar, could only be carried out with the help of coercive force. Ivan the Terrible introduced oprichnina for his bloody deeds. The reforms of Peter the Great could be carried out not only thanks to the omnipotence of the tsarist decrees, but because behind them stood a professional army, a new bureaucratic apparatus. The basis of their power was the legitimacy of the royal power; the king’s servants acted on its behalf58.

Within the first method, the following types of traditional government can be distinguished: gerontocracy (the power of the elders); patriarchal (the power of tribal leaders); patrimonial (the power of the monarch, which can be sanctified by religious norms); sultanism, where the use of violence is a tradition, and the power of the ruler is freed from traditional restrictions (ancient eastern despotism); the power of the sovereign over feudal vassals, which dominated in the medieval era, and in modern society is manifested in such phenomena as loyalty to the oath, code of honor, etc.59.

The second way of legitimizing state power in Weber’s theory is charismatic. M. Weber saw examples of charisma in Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. With the help of the charismatic method, state power is legitimized not by attachment to tradition, that is, to what has long been established and become common, but, on the contrary, is based on “ ...the authority of an extraordinary personal gift” (charisma), that is, for something extraordinary, unusual. However, despite all the differences between the traditional and charismatic methods of legitimation, they are still united by the personal nature of the relationship between the holders of power and subordinates. It’s just that the source of personal devotion to a charismatic (sovereign, leader, leader) is not tradition, but a strong emotional feeling, faith in an unusual gift, the desire not to part with such a feeling60.

The word “charisma” (charisme - in Greek, mercy, divine grace) primarily refers to religious language; it was borrowed by M. Weber from theology. In theological literature, the concept of “charisma” means a certain gift, giving, receiving by divine grace. M. Weber expanded this concept to a secular interpretation. In relation to any individual (political subject), charisma is what makes this person stand above ordinary people, is considered as endowed with extraordinary qualities and strength, which causes him to be treated as a leader.

M. Weber defined the qualities of a charismatic leader: consistency, determination, self-confidence, extraordinary actions - these qualities help the leader to strengthen self-confidence and thereby strengthen his power over others. According to M. Weber, a charismatic leader, standing outside of classes, statuses, demagogic policies, and not integrated into bureaucratic structures, can unite the nation around himself, prevent the bureaucratization of power, and protect people from it61.

Its influence has two features. First, it is enormous, it can direct people to take actions that nothing else would predispose them to take. Secondly, this influence does not stem from a previous position, like a king, or from the will of the people, like a president.

In theological terms, we can say that it comes from God. The term "charisma" should be retained in cases where power is a consequence of a sense of choice, i.e. when an individual's personal traits allow him to impose himself.

Problems of legal regulation of electoral legitimation of state power

The formation and development of a democratic rule-of-law state in the Russian Federation, one of its essential conditions is the legal support for mandatory elections as the only acceptable legal and legitimate way of delegating the power of the people to representative state bodies and local self-government bodies. Free, periodic, fair and non-rigged elections are becoming a mandatory attribute of modern Russian statehood, which objectively contributes to increasing the role and importance of their mediating electoral law, which forms the legal foundation for the formation and functioning of all institutions of the system of representative democracy180. Without any exaggeration, suffrage and accompanying legislation acquire a special socio-political status and, as a result, quite reasonably claim to have an independent purpose in the public legal system of Russia.

Representing a relatively independent phenomenon of legal reality, Russian electoral law has a rather complex internal structure and occupies a special place in the legal system, which may well be the object of system-structural analysis.

The system of sources of electoral law in Russia consists of: - the Constitution of the Russian Federation; - generally recognized principles and norms of international law, as well as international treaties of the Russian Federation; - Federal Law of June 12, 2002 “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation” - Federal Law of December 20, 2002 “On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”; - Federal Law of January 10, 2003 “On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation”; - Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 “On the Mass Media”; - Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences186, Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation188; - other federal laws;

Electoral legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

By-laws: decisions of election commissions, regulations of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting, Mass Communications, regulations of local governments.

Other sources: decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation; regulatory agreements of an intrastate nature.

Some scholars attribute customs and electoral practices to the sources of Russian electoral law189.

The electoral law of the Russian Federation in the modern period is in the process of formation and development. This is evidenced by the prevalence of laws in the system of sources of electoral law and the expansion of the scope of constitutional and legal regulation of electoral relations.

Improving electoral legislation is related to the specifics of implementing the norms of electoral law. This process involves bringing material and procedural norms into line with the new socio-political conditions of society, eliminating contradictions and gaps in legislation, systematization and codification at the federal and regional levels.

The complexity of improving electoral legislation is manifested in ensuring the freedom to exercise the electoral rights of citizens, on the one hand, and the need for federal regulation of election procedures, on the other.

Improving electoral legislation is one of the priority areas for the development of the Russian electoral system. It seems that the most promising solution in this regard may be the solution to the following problems.

Firstly, increasing the hierarchical level of legislative regulation of the basic principles and categories of electoral law by giving them a constitutional form and meaning, highlighting a special chapter in the structure of the Basic Law dedicated to the electoral system.

Currently, the Constitution of the Russian Federation is the basis for the formation of electoral legislation in Russia and its further development is largely predetermined by the content of the Constitution. A feature of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, in comparison with those previously in force, is the absence of a special chapter on the electoral system and interrelated issues of electoral policy.

There are two opinions regarding the assessment of this fact in the scientific literature.

Some scientists believe that this state of affairs is completely justified. In particular, V.E. Chirkin explains the absence of a chapter on the electoral system in the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the fact that “different principles of electoral law apply to different supreme bodies of the state: in many countries the president is elected not by direct, but by indirect elections, by parliament, by a special electoral college, The upper house is also sometimes formed through indirect elections (France) or even appointed (Germany).”190 And, further, as if justifying the legislator: “therefore, sometimes it is impossible to consolidate as universal the historically recognized principles of suffrage: universal, direct, equal suffrage by secret ballot. These provisions are also absent in the Constitution of the Russian Federation as universal ones. They appear in determining the methods of forming individual bodies, for example, the President (Part 1 of Article 81)”191.

Responsibility for election offenses as a means of combating the delegitimation of state power

Factors that delegitimize state power in Russia include: election fraud; so-called “black PR” and “dirty” electoral technologies; corruption of the state apparatus; the decline in the authority of the state's security forces; their inability to restore law and order in the country; creating conditions for criminal penetration into power; imperfection of legislation and others. It is easy to see that the palette of terminology used here is quite wide.

The main form of delegalization of state power is offenses. In this case, the use of non-legal terminology (“black PR”, “dirty technologies”) does not seem to be operational. In jurisprudence, every action or inaction must be qualified either as legal or illegal. Another question is if one or another type of behavior, called “black PR,” harms the interests of the individual, society and the state, that is, it poses a social danger, but today is not illegal. This means that a corresponding change in legislation is required, after which it can and will need to be given an appropriate legal assessment. But until this happens, alas, actions of this kind should be classified as acceptable lawful behavior.

The main legal means of combating the delegitimation of state power is liability for violation of election legislation.

Legal liability for violations of election legislation is a public legal means of ensuring public interest in the exercise of voting rights by citizens.

Legal liability for violation of electoral legislation means the obligation of the offender to be punished in the form of legal restrictive measures (sanctions) established by law, which are applied by specially authorized jurisdictional bodies203.

Depending on the sectoral affiliation of the regulatory framework, there are three types of liability for violations of election legislation: 1) constitutional and legal liability (liability under electoral law); 2) administrative responsibility; 3) criminal liability. In some cases, disciplinary and civil penalties may be applied. Thus, if during the election campaign a candidate spreads regulations that infringe on the honor, dignity and business reputation of citizens or legal entities, he will bear civil liability to them in accordance with Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation at the claim of an interested person.

Let's consider the legal features and problems of implementing each type of legal liability for violation of election legislation.

Constitutional and legal liability for violation of electoral legislation. As is rightly noted in the literature, this type of legal liability is not yet directly recognized by law, in contrast to, say, criminal, civil, administrative, disciplinary and financial liability.

However, constitutional and legal responsibility has long received scientific recognition and is a legal reality. Scientific research conducted over a considerable period of time points to the undoubted need for legal recognition of this type of legal liability as an independent one. In addition, the current legislation already contains a number of norms that actually establish certain grounds for constitutional and legal liability and call sanctions specific to this type of liability.

Legal regulation of public legal relations is based on ensuring the interests of the individual through ensuring the interests of society as a whole or individual social groups and communities. Thus, the main legal relations in the field of elections are public legal relations between the people (the population - in local elections) and applicants for deputy mandates and elective positions. All other legal relations are derived from them and are subordinate to them. Civil liability is possible in the field of elections, but it cannot replace public liability207.

The public nature of constitutional and legal responsibility is expressed in the use of power relations with their implementation according to the “command - execution” principle. The subjects of these relations are strictly bound in their activities by the framework of their competence, which is formulated by clearly defining a list of powers that are closed. This approach is determined by the authoritative nature of the powers of subjects of public law and the need to use these powers to achieve generally significant goals. The public legal sphere is characterized by the use of positive obligations, prohibitions, persuasion and coercion as the preferential methods of influencing the behavior of subjects208.

The normative grounds for constitutional and legal liability for violation of election legislation are contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law of June 12, 2002 “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation”, the Federal Law of December 20, 2002. “On the election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, the Federal Law of January 10, 2003 “On the election of the President of the Russian Federation”, as well as in the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Bringing offenders to constitutional and legal responsibility for violating election legislation is possible through administrative and judicial procedures.

Subjects of constitutional and legal responsibility for violation of election legislation can be divided into individual and collective. Individual subjects of responsibility are candidates, registered candidates for deputies, for the position of head of the executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, head of a municipal entity, deputies of legislative (representative) bodies of state power, representative bodies of local self-government, heads of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal entity. Collective subjects of responsibility include electoral associations, electoral blocs, and election commissions. The responsibility of other participants in the electoral process is not constitutional and legal, but administrative, legal and other in nature.

Typology of leadership.

The multidimensionality of the concept of political leadership has led to the emergence of a diverse typology (classification) of it. The German sociologist Max Weber conducts a typology of leadership depending on the method of legitimizing power: a)

At the same time, actual individual qualities sometimes play an insignificant role in comparison with the formed appearance (image) or simply the emotions of the crowd. Associated with charisma is the concept of a cult of personality, which represents the most inflated assessment of the role of a political leader in history (the leader is a prophet). The cult of personality is a natural prerequisite and at the same time a consequence of a totalitarian system.

Typology of political leaders
Leadership Approval Method in groups and organizations	Formal; informal
A way to legitimize the leader's power in society	Traditional; authority is based on customs and traditions; tribal leaders, monarchs. rational-legal; (elected democratically, their authority is based on reason); charismatic - consists of the real abilities of the leader and the qualities that his followers and people endow him with.
Leadership style	Authoritarian; liberal; democratic
Image and role assignment	Leader-standard-bearer; servant leader; leader-trader; firefighter leader
Tactics for achieving your goals	Conservatives; reformers; revolutionaries

A way to assert leadership in groups

Formal leader called a leader appointed from above and managing people according to current regulations and instructions.

Informal leadership - something that developed naturally in the process of personal relationships between people.

Many studies of leadership are based on the typology of legitimate dominance developed by M. Weber. It is based on identifying the roots of leadership, the basis that allows a particular individual to become a political leader.

Traditional leadership is based on traditions, customs and the habit of followers to obey. This type of leadership is characteristic of pre-industrial society. This type includes tribal leaders, monarchs and other leaders whose power and authority are based on customs and traditions.

Rational-legal leadership (bureaucratic) - leadership exercised on the basis and within the framework of laws adopted by a modern democratic society.

Charismatic leadership is based on faith in the extraordinary, outstanding qualities of the leader. These are leaders by calling, people’s leaders “from God.” This type of leadership is of greatest interest to researchers. Examples of such leaders include: Mohammed, Caesar, Napoleon, etc., from the leaders
XX century – V. Lenin (Russia), F. Castro (Cuba), D. Nehru (India),
M. Gorbachev (USSR), B. Yeltsin (Russia).

38. Problems of formation of political culture in Russia

We can say that political culture is widely held ideas about politics, management and government, patterns of orientation in relation to political objects. Within political culture, both cognitive orientations (knowledge about politics) and affective orientations (feelings and emotions about politics) are distinguished.

In its real movement, political culture exists in two main active forms:

a) in spiritual(spiritual-practical), including political experience, traditions, orientations, attitudes and symbols, manifestation of feelings in politics;

b) in subject-functional(certain methods, forms, patterns of organization of political institutions, means of political activity that materialize the achievements of political science thought, the nature of the political process). Both forms are closely interrelated, embodied or embodied in political processes and the political life of society.

Thus, the formation of Russian political culture has a number of features.

In general, the political culture of Russians is characterized by: an orientation towards the norms of collectivist or communal morality; ideologization in political and other issues; a penchant for political radicalism and political extremes; political loyalty and submissive attitude to power; legal nihilism and low level of legal consciousness; predisposition to political conformism (adaptation to a specific political regime); a certain political credulity; lack of political knowledge and experience.

In general, Russian political culture on the threshold of the 21st century. is a transition from an authoritarian-statist, “submissive-participatory” to a democratic, civil culture.

The modern political culture of Russia can be defined as fragmented, characterized by different value orientations; contradictions between elite and mass culture; the divergence between the subcultures of the urban and rural populations, the metropolitan and provincial electorates.

The effectiveness of government largely depends on its legitimacy.

Legitimacy- this is the recognition by society of the legitimacy of existing institutions of power and the legitimacy of the decisions they make. In a narrow sense, the concept of legitimacy characterizes legality authorities. Legitimacy here is about conviction, not normativity. We are talking about a certain political consensus in society, when the masses show commitment to political power, a political system with the basic political values ​​achieved here.

M.Weber saw legitimacy as a guarantee of social stability.

Legitimation - a procedure for public recognition of any action, event, fact, person, designed to ensure political participation without coercion.

Properties of maintaining the legitimacy of power:

Changes in legislation in accordance with new requirements

The desire to use tradition in policy and legislation

Maintaining law and order in society.

Indicators of legitimacy are:

Level of coercion

Presence of attempts to overthrow the government

The Power of Civil Obedience

Results of elections and referendums

The presence of demonstrations, rallies, pickets.

Delegitimation - loss of trust, deprivation of public credit from power. Its main reasons are: contradictions between the values ​​in society and the interests of the ruling elite, the increase in corruption and bureaucratization in society.

One of the main specific properties of political power is legitimacy. It is a form of support, justification for the legitimacy of the use of power and the implementation of (a specific form of) government either by the state as a whole or by its individual structures and institutions.

Etymologically, the word “legitimacy” originates from the Latin legalis - legality. However, legitimacy and legality are not synonymous. Since political power is not always based on law and laws, but always enjoys some form of support from at least part of the population, legitimacy, which characterizes the support and support of power by real political subjects, differs from legality, which indicates a legal, legislatively based type of government, i.e. . on recognition of its competence by the entire population. In some political systems, power can be legal and illegitimate, as, for example, under the rule of metropolises in colonial states, in others - legitimate, but illegal, as, say, after a revolutionary coup supported by the majority of the population, in others - and legal , and legitimate, as, for example, after the victory of certain forces in elections.

In the history of political thought, many contradictory views have been expressed regarding the very possibility of legitimating power. Thus, scientists who stand on anthropological positions and the platform of natural law proceed from the fact that legitimacy is possible and real, since in human society there are certain absolute values ​​and ideals common to all. This gives citizens the opportunity to support the government.

At the same time, many scientists believe that it is precisely the absence of such common ideas in a segmented society that is the reason for the impossibility of the emergence of legitimacy. Thus, according to the Austrian scientist G. Kelsen, human knowledge and interests are extremely relative, and therefore everyone is free both in designing their lives and in relation to power. At the same time, supporters of contractual theories argue that support for government is possible as long as there is a joint agreement among citizens regarding its goals and values. Therefore, “any type of legitimacy presupposes the existence of a minimum social consensus regarding the values ​​that are accepted by the majority of society and which underlie the functioning of the political regime.”

A different approach back in the 18th century. proposed by the English thinker E. Burke, who separated the theoretical and practical aspects of legitimacy. He did not analyze legitimacy in itself, but connected it only with a specific regime, with specific citizens. In his opinion, only the positive experience and habits of the population can lead to the construction of a model of government in which it would satisfy the interests of citizens and, therefore, could enjoy their support. Moreover, this experience and the corresponding conditions must be formed and accumulated evolutionarily, preventing the conscious construction of legitimacy.

Sources of legitimacy Currently in political science it is customary to take a more specific approach to the concept of legitimacy, recording a much wider range of its sources and forms. Thus, as a rule, three subjects are considered as the main sources of legitimacy: the population, the government and foreign policy structures.

Legitimacy, which means support for power from broad sections of the population, is the most cherished goal of all political regimes. It is this that primarily ensures the stability and stability of power. A positive attitude of the population towards the policies of the authorities and their recognition of the competence of the ruling elite are formed on any problems that are in the focus of public opinion. The approval and support of the authorities by the population is associated with various political and civil traditions, mechanisms for the spread of ideologies, the processes of forming the authority of values ​​​​shared by the “tops” and “bottoms,” and a certain organization of the state and society. This forces us to treat legitimacy as a political-cultural characteristic of power relations.

At the same time, legitimacy can be initiated and formed not by the population, but by the state (government) itself and political structures (pro-government parties), which encourage the mass consciousness to reproduce positive assessments of the activities of the ruling regime. Such legitimacy is based on the right of citizens to fulfill their duties in maintaining a certain order and relations with the state. It directly depends on the ability of the authorities and elite structures to create and maintain people’s beliefs in the fairness and optimality of the existing political institutions and the line of behavior they pursue. For the formation of such legitimacy, the institutional and communicative resources of the state acquire enormous importance. True, such forms of legitimacy often turn into excessive legalization, which ultimately makes it possible to consider any institutionalized and legislatively formalized government as the legalized right of the authorities to use coercion. Thus, legitimacy, in essence, is identified with the legality, legality, legal validity of state power and the consolidation of its existence in society.

Legitimacy can also be formed by external political centers - friendly states, international organizations. This type of political support is often used in the election of state leaders and in international conflicts.

In other words, within a state, different political actors may have different characters and have different levels of support by public or international opinion. For example, the institution of the presidency in Yugoslavia enjoys broad domestic support but is strongly condemned internationally, where many countries recognize Milosevic as a war criminal. Or, conversely, individual politicians or parties may be ostracized at home, but receive support abroad as representatives of the democratic movement. Thus, the population can support parliament and protest against the activities of the government, or they can support the president and have a negative attitude towards the activities of representative bodies. Thus, legitimacy can have different intensities, making it possible to establish hierarchical connections between individual politicians and authorities.

Types of Legitimacy The diversity of different political actors' ability to support a system of government presupposes equally diverse types of legitimacy. In political science, the most popular classification was compiled by M. Weber, who, from the point of view of motivation for submission, identified the following types:

• -- traditional legitimacy, formed on the basis of people's belief in the necessity and inevitability of subordination to power, which receives in society (group) the status of tradition, custom, habit of obedience to certain persons or political institutions. This type of legitimacy is especially common in hereditary types of government, in particular in monarchical states. A long habit of justifying one or another form of government creates the effect of its fairness and legality, which gives power high stability and stability;
• -- rational (democratic) legitimacy that arises as a result of people’s recognition of the fairness of those rational and democratic procedures on the basis of which the system of power is formed. This type of support develops due to a person’s understanding of the presence of third-party interests, which presupposes the need to develop rules of general behavior, following which creates the opportunity to realize his own goals. In other words, the rational type of legitimacy essentially has a normative basis, characteristic of the organization of power in complexly organized societies. People here are subject not so much to individuals embodying power, but to rules, laws, procedures, and, consequently, political structures and institutions formed on their basis. At the same time, the content of rules and institutions can change dynamically depending on changes in mutual interests and living conditions;
• - charismatic legitimacy, which develops as a result of people's faith in the outstanding qualities of a political leader that they recognize. This image of an infallible person endowed with exceptional qualities (charisma) is transferred by public opinion to the entire system of power. Unconditionally believing all the actions and plans of a charismatic leader, people uncritically accept the style and methods of his rule. The emotional delight of the population, which forms this highest authority, most often arises during a period of revolutionary change, when social orders and ideals familiar to people are collapsing and people cannot rely either on former norms and values, or on the still emerging rules of the political game. Therefore, the charisma of a leader embodies the faith and hope of people for a better future in troubled times. But such unconditional support of the ruler by the population often turns into Caesarism, leaderism and a cult of personality.

In addition to these methods of supporting power, a number of scientists identify others, giving legitimacy a more universal and dynamic character. Thus, the English researcher D. Held, along with the types of legitimacy already known to us, suggests talking about such types as: “consent under the threat of violence,” when people support the government, fearing threats from it, even a threat to their safety; legitimacy based on the apathy of the population, indicating its indifference to the established style and forms of government; pragmatic (instrumental) support, in which trust placed in the authorities is carried out in exchange for promises given by them of certain social benefits; normative support, which presupposes the coincidence of political principles shared by the population and the authorities; and finally, the highest normative support, meaning the complete coincidence of these kinds of principles.

Some scientists also identify an ideological type of legitimacy that provokes support for the authorities from public opinion as a result of active agitation and propaganda activities carried out by the ruling circles.

Vadim Vladimirovich Grachev, candidate of legal sciences, assistant at the department of civil law and process, Yaroslavl State University. P.G. Demidova.

Civil circulation is familiar with many types of securities, which necessitates their classification. In civil law, these documents are classified on various grounds, in particular: 1) according to the method of issue - emission and non-emission; 2) according to the status of the issuer - private, municipal and state; 3) by the nature of the right certified by paper - proprietary, obligatory and corporate; 4) according to the value embodied in the paper - commodity and monetary; 5) by connection with the basis for issuance - causal and abstract; 6) according to the presence of a form in the paper - blank and non-formal; 7) according to the degree of autonomy of the right certified by the paper - papers of public authenticity (securities in the narrow sense) and securities that do not have public reliability<1>.

<1>For these and other classifications of securities, see: Shershenevich G.F. Trade law course. M., 2003. T. 2. P. 62 - 64; Agarkov M.M. Fundamentals of banking law. The doctrine of securities. M., 1994. S. 188 - 212.

However, the most widespread division of securities into bearer, order and registered. On what basis does this division occur?

The fundamentals of civil legislation of the USSR and the republics of 1991 distinguished between these papers according to the method of their transmission. Clause 2 of Art. 31 of the Fundamentals prescribed that a bearer security is transferred to another person by delivery, an order security - by making an inscription certifying the transfer, and a registered security - in the manner established for the assignment of claims, unless otherwise provided by law. Such a solution to the issue cannot be considered successful. The method of transferring order papers, according to this article, does not allow them to be distinguished from recta papers, which can also be transferred by means of an endorsement on the paper itself. So, for example, the transfer of a recta bill can be formalized by an endorsement made on the bill itself, which in this case should be considered as an assignment expressed in short form<2>. In addition, the prescription of Art. 31 ignores the fact that order securities, in particular order bills, equipped with a blank endorsement, can be transferred by simple delivery (clause 3 of article 14 of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes, approved by the Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 7 1937 N 104/1341<3>), which, however, does not turn them into bearer securities.

<2>Krasheninnikov E.A. Legal nature of recta papers // Essays on commercial law. Yaroslavl, 1996. Vol. 3. P. 10; It's him. Ordinary registered securities // Economy and Law. 1996. N 12. P. 82.
<3>NW USSR. 1937. N 52. Art. 221.

There is a widespread opinion in the literature that the division of securities into the specified types is carried out according to the method of designating the authorized person<4>. From this point of view, a nominal paper is drawn up in the name of a certain person, an order paper is drawn up by order of a certain person, and a bearer paper is drawn up in the name of the bearer of the paper. This division of securities, adopted by paragraph 1 of Art. 145 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, is rightly rejected by civilists for the following reasons<5>.

<4>See, for example: Gareis K. German commercial law. M., 1895. Issue. 2. P. 510; Shershenevich G.F. Textbook of commercial law (according to the 1914 edition). M., 1994. P. 174; Vershinin A.P. Contents of rights certified by securities // Essays on trade law. Yaroslavl, 1997. Vol. 4. P. 37; Civil law / Ed. A.P. Sergeeva and Yu.K. Tolstoy. 6th ed. M., 2002. T. 1. P. 266 (author of the chapter - A.P. Sergeev).
<5>Agarkov M.M. Decree. op. pp. 190 - 191; Krasheninnikov E.A. Registered share as a security // Essays on commercial law. Yaroslavl, 1995. Issue. 2. pp. 5 - 6.

First, bearer securities may indicate the person holding the right from the paper. So, for example, para. 5 tbsp. 5 of the Uniform Checks Law of 1931 and para. 4 tbsp. 982 of the Estonian Law of Obligations Act 2001 classifies bearer checks with an alternative bearer clause, that is, documents that indicate a specific person with the addition of the clause “or to the bearer” or another equivalent clause.

Secondly, bearer securities do not always contain a bearer clause, that is, the word “to the bearer”. A security may not contain such a clause and still be considered a bearer security. So, for example, if the savings certificate does not indicate the name of the depositor, then it is considered a bearer certificate (clause 8 of the Regulations “On Savings and Deposit Certificates of Credit Institutions”, approved by letter of the Central Bank of February 10, 1992 N 14-3-20<6>).

<6>Bulletin of the Bank of Russia. 1998. N 64; 2000. N 66 - 67.

Thirdly, an order clause, which indicates the possibility of determining the subject of law under a security by order of the first acquirer of the security, is not a mandatory part of the order security. Some papers, in particular promissory notes and bills of exchange, are considered warrants by force of law, that is, they may contain only the name of the first purchaser without indicating his ability to appoint the subject of law under the paper by his order and at the same time provide him with such an opportunity (paragraph 1 of article 11 Provisions on bills of exchange and promissory notes).

It seems that the division under consideration should be based on the method of legitimizing the holder of the paper as a subject of the law certified by the paper<7>. According to this classification basis, securities are divided not into three, but into four types. This division is carried out by many domestic commercialists and is currently predominant in Russian civil law.<8>.

<7>Agarkov M.M. Decree. op. pp. 194 - 197.
<8>See, for example: Krasheninnikov E.A. Bearer securities in the securities system // State and law. 1993. N 12. S. 43 - 44; Grachev V.V. Legitimation of securities // Essays on trade law. Yaroslavl, 1996. Vol. 3. P. 19; Chuvakov V.B. On the problem of classification of securities // Code-info. 2001. N 2. P. 19; Tregubenko E.Yu. Order securities. Yaroslavl, 2002. P. 18. Some authors, in particular E.A. Sukhanov, identify the method of legitimation with the method of designating a person authorized by paper (see: Civil law / Edited by E.A. Sukhanov. 2nd ed. M., 2004. T. 1. P. 422). However, the legitimized holder of the paper may not be the person authorized by the paper (for example, a thief who stole a bearer paper may be legitimized by presenting the paper, although he is not the subject of the right certified by it). In addition, the division of securities according to the method of legitimation, as proved by M.M. Agarkov, leads to their four-member classification, while their division according to the method of designating an authorized person allows us to distinguish only three types of securities.

Legitimation creates the assumption that the owner of the paper has the right certified by it. It is carried out with the help of legitimizing facts, which include the presentation of paper to the obligated person, the indication of the owner’s name in the text of the document, the presence of endorsements on the paper, an entry in the book of the obligated person, etc. The set of these facts that legitimize the holder as a subject of the relevant law is different for each type of security.

Legitimation is carried out in the interests of the security holder, the obligated entity and third parties<9>. The holder of the document is interested in his legitimation, since it allows him to exercise the right certified by the security. The debtor is interested in performance to a properly legitimized bearer, since in this case he is released from his obligation, even if the bearer was not the person authorized by the document. A third party is interested in legitimation when acquiring a security, since the legitimation of the alienator serves as a prerequisite for a bona fide acquisition and, in turn, determines the legitimation of the acquirer as a subject of law under the security.

<9>Agarkov M.M. Decree. op. pp. 177, 178.

Depending on the method of legitimizing the security holder, all securities known to Russian legislation are divided into the following types.

Bearer securities legitimize their holder as a subject of the right certified by the paper by the mere fact of presenting the paper. Bearer securities include simple warehouse receipts (clause 1 of Article 917 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), savings books to bearer (paragraph 1 of clause 1 of Article 843 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), bearer checks (Article 878 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), bills of lading for bearer (Article 146 of the Code of Labor Code of the Russian Federation), bearer bonds (paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Federal Law “On the Securities Market”), bearer deposit and savings certificates (clause 2 of Article 844 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), etc.

Order securities, an example of which can be order bills (paragraph 1 of article 11, paragraph 1 of article 16 of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes), order checks (paragraph 1 of clause 3 of article 880 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and order bills of lading (Article 146 of the Code of Labor Code of the Russian Federation), legitimize its holder if he is indicated in the paper itself as its first purchaser<10>or if a continuous series of endorsements (endorsements) ends on it. The endorsement may be personal or letterhead. The first, unlike the blank form, contains the name of the endorser.

<10>Some believe that such an indication is not part of the actual composition of legitimation on the order paper (see, for example: Tregubenko E.Yu. Decree. Op. pp. 18 - 19). On the fallacy of this view, see: Grachev V.V. Rec. on the book: Tregubenko E.Yu. Order securities. Yaroslavl, 2002 // Jurisprudence. 2003. N 3. P. 232.

The continuity of a series of endorsements occurs when the first inscription is made by the first purchaser of the paper, and each subsequent one is made by the person who received the paper under the previous endorsement. A blank inscription made by a legitimized person does not interrupt the chain of endorsements.

A blank-endorsed order security can be transferred in the same way as a bearer security, that is, by delivering the document to the acquirer (clause 3 of article 14 of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes). However, this does not turn it into a bearer document.<11>, since the bearer of such a paper is legitimized in a way inherent not to bearer, but to order securities (paragraph 1 of article 16 of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes)<12>.

<11>Agarkov M.M. Decree. op. pp. 191 - 192; Krasheninnikov E.A. Drawing up a bill of exchange. Yaroslavl, 1992. pp. 32 - 34; Chuvakov V.B. Decree. op. P. 18; Civil law / Ed. A.P. Sergeeva and Yu.K. Tolstoy. 4th ed. M., 2003. T. 2. P. 564 (author of the chapter - D.A. Medvedev).
<12>For more information about this, see: Grachev V.V. Transfer of a blank endorsed bill // Essays on commercial law. Yaroslavl, 2004. Issue. 11. pp. 85 - 90.

Registered securities, which according to current legislation are registered shares and registered bonds (Article 143 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), legitimize their holder when his name is indicated on the paper, as well as in the book (register) of the obligated person.

Ordinary registered securities (rekta-papers), such as, for example, registered bills of lading (Article 146 of the Code of Labor and Trade of the Russian Federation), recta bills (paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes) and registered checks (clause 2 of Art. 880 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), legitimize its holder if he is named as authorized in the paper itself or is a person to whom the paper reached in a general civil manner.

Unlike bearer, order and registered securities, recta securities do not have public validity and are not intended for circulation, as a result of which some authors do not classify them as securities. For example, E.A. Sukhanov argues that registered bills of exchange and registered checks are not considered by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as securities<13>. But the securities indicated by the author fully fall under the legal definition of securities (paragraph 1, clause 1, article 142 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and are therefore covered by the list of securities contained in art. 143 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

<13>Civil law / Ed. E.A. Sukhanov. T. 1. P. 423. Approx. 1.

It should be borne in mind that the term “registered” is used by the Russian legislator to designate both registered and ordinary registered securities<14>. However, both of them, contrary to the opinion of A.P. Sergeeva<15>do not form one group of securities, since they differ from each other in a number of ways (by the method of legitimation, by the method of transfer, etc.).

<14>Krasheninnikov E.A. Legal nature of recta papers. pp. 4 - 5.
<15>Civil law / Ed. A.P. Sergeeva and Yu.K. Tolstoy. T. 1. P. 267.

E.A. Sukhanov believes that recta papers are only those registered papers that cannot be transferred to other persons<16>. In fact, recta papers, as a general rule, have the property of transitivity. For example, registered bills of exchange and registered deposit (savings) certificates can be transferred by assignment (paragraph 2, article 11 of the Regulations on bills of exchange and promissory notes, paragraph 1, paragraph 16 of the Regulations “On savings and deposit certificates of credit institutions”) .

<16>Civil law / Ed. E.A. Sukhanov. T. 1. P. 423.

The methods of legitimation discussed above are typical for the corresponding type of securities. However, in some cases, other circumstances may also act as legitimizing facts. For example, a person who has received a registered bond by inheritance is legitimized by presenting the bond and a certificate of right to inheritance. When foreclosure on a bill of order acquired as a result of an auction, evidence of the purchase of the bill of exchange at an auction is required to legitimize the holder. To legitimize a registered check acquired as a result of the division of a legal entity, the presentation of a separation balance sheet is required. When using these facts, we are talking about atypical methods of legitimation<17>, which are not taken into account when classifying securities.

<17>Grachev V.V. Legitimation for securities. P. 21.