home / Relationship/ Expansion of the bureaucratic apparatus. The essence of bureaucratic management

Expansion of the bureaucratic apparatus. The essence of bureaucratic management

Introduction

Chapter 1. Methodological aspects of the study of bureaucracy

1.1 The concept of bureaucracy and the evolution of the theory of bureaucracy

1.2 The origins of bureaucracy in Russia

2. The place of bureaucracy in the system state power

2.1 Features of the system of government bodies

2.2 The relationship between bureaucracy and state power

3. Problems of bureaucracy in the system of government bodies and ways to solve them

3.1 Problems of bureaucracy in the modern system

3.2 Ways to overcome bureaucracy

Conclusion

List of used literature

The analysis of the phenomenon of bureaucracy in modern political science has gone far beyond its understanding as an administrative phenomenon, which involves the description of a number of shortcomings of a functional nature. Bureaucracy is not only a way of carrying out work in institutions and not only a specifically organized layer of employees selected according to certain criteria. Bureaucracy is a type of government organization and a way of life in society. This is a certain type of dynamics of development and adaptation to the processes of modernization of society.

In Russian literature, until recently, the study of the bureaucratization of society was limited to criticism of the dysfunctional side of its activities, its inherent routine, formalism, rigidity of views, and the slowness of the executive function. For a long period, even faint hints at the possibility of the existence of a bureaucracy as a professional group, much less as a social stratum or type of government, were considered unacceptable. In accordance with this, its analysis, at best, was carried out in the form of criticism of Western concepts and, above all, of such representatives of bourgeois scientific thought as M. Weber or, to a lesser extent, D. March, G. Simon, Selznick.

In the 1990s, however, due to changing social processes, the range of thinking about bureaucracy expanded significantly. Works have appeared that analyze the phenomena of bureaucratic consciousness, the connection between the phenomenon of bureaucracy and organizational and managerial concepts and cultural phenomena. In connection with the beginning of the development of this direction of Russian scientific thought, we cannot but be interested in the attempts of Western theorists to conceptualize the phenomenon of bureaucracy, to create a more or less holistic vision of this phenomenon as a result of the life activity of the social mechanism itself, its organizational and cultural components.

Relevance of the graduation topic qualifying work is determined by the complexity and inconsistency of the modern period of formation of Russian statehood, crisis manifestations in all spheres of Russian reality, the intensification of the political struggle for influence on the institutions of power and control over the activities of government structures. Numerous disadvantages modern system public administration are well known not only to specialists, but also to all those who encounter the work of the bureaucratic apparatus on duty and in everyday life. That is why the reform of the Russian state apparatus is one of the most important points in the renewal program Russian system management.

The purpose of the final qualifying work is to identify the features of bureaucracy and the bureaucratic apparatus in the system of government bodies.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Define the concept of bureaucracy and trace the evolution of the main theories of bureaucracy;

Identify the origins of bureaucracy in Russia;

Consider the system of government bodies;

Identify the relationship between the system of government bodies and bureaucracy;

Explore the problems of bureaucracy in the modern system;

Determine ways to overcome bureaucracy.

This final qualifying work consists of three chapters. The first chapter of the final qualifying work examines the methodological aspects of bureaucracy.

The first chapter of the course work consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph examines the concept of bureaucracy and the basic theories of the evolution of bureaucracy. The second paragraph of this chapter examines the origins of the emergence of bureaucracy in Russia.

The second chapter of the final qualifying work explores the place occupied by bureaucracy in the system of government. This chapter contains two subsections. The first paragraph discusses the features of the system of government bodies. The second subsection of this chapter examines the relationship between bureaucracy and state power.

The third chapter of the final qualifying work is devoted to the main problems of bureaucracy in the system of government bodies and ways to solve these problems. The third chapter consists of two points. The first paragraph examines the main problems of bureaucracy in the system of government bodies. The second point contains ways to overcome bureaucracy.

When writing the final qualifying work, the author used such methodological principles as analysis, objectivity, historicism, systematicity, and statistics.

The word “bureaucracy” literally translated into Russian means the dominance of the office (from the French bureau - bureau, office and Greek kratos - power, domination), the power of the management apparatus.

It is believed that the term “bureaucracy” was introduced into circulation in the 40s. XVIII century French economist Vincent de Gournay, for whom bureaucracy appears as a kind of way of exercising state power with the help of paid civil servants. The use of this term became quite common in the socio-political literature of individual European countries in the 19th century. In this century, the term "bureaucracy" was usually used to designate a special type of political system in which ministerial positions were held by professional officials, usually responsible to a hereditary monarch. Bureaucracy was contrasted with a system of representative government, that is, the rule of elected politicians accountable to the legislative assembly or parliament.

The foundation of a scientific understanding of the problems associated with bureaucracy was laid by such thinkers and scientists as N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Russo, G.W.F. Hegel, A. Tocqueville, J. Mill, K. Marx.

The development of the theory of bureaucracy in the field of political analysis was started by G. W. F. Hegel. He was the first to emphasize the role played by civil servants, or functionaries, in the process of unification and rationalization of society, opposing fragmentation at the level of civil society in the sphere of economic isolation of individuals. He actually began the development of what in modern political literature is referred to as the institution of public administration (in the instrumental tradition of state science) or the institution of the state (in the ethical tradition). The meaning of existence and tasks of this institution (in both connotations) are to create, defend and preserve a common, unifying point of view, to support the idea of the primacy of society as a certain unity over society as a contradictory set of interests.

In Hegel's time, bureaucracy was associated primarily with the concept of centralized European state as a progressive phenomenon for that era. In his concept, the ideas of the rational structure of such a state reached the most refined and complete expression. In “Philosophy of Law” he combined the ethical rationalism of I. Kant and the traditions of German idealism, correlating them with the realities of the institutional structure of the Prussian state of his time. (The comprehensive regulation of the lives of Prussian citizens of that era contrasted sharply with the British system of self-government).

Hegel considered the Prussian state to be the embodiment of the rational structure of human society, both from the point of view of achieving the common good and from the perspective of realizing individual goals of self-regulation of the individual. He viewed the bureaucracy as one of the three main layers of society, along with the layer of industrialists and farmers. Moreover, the bureaucratic layer, or the layer of civil servants, in his opinion, was the only layer in society that embodied and actually realized the general interest. The private interest of civil servants, he believed, coincides with the general interest. The implementation of national goals, as well as the legitimacy of the layer of bureaucracy itself, the completeness of trust in relation to it on the part of the people largely depend on political culture and the socio-political behavior of this layer. Hence the need arises to pay special attention to the education and training of representatives of this layer as citizens and as professionals, so that they are at the level of the requirements placed on them and at the level of the tasks that arise before them.

Also A. Tocqueville (1805 - 1859) noted that centralization, omnipresence, omnipotence of public power, the uniformity of its laws are the most characteristic features of all political systems emerging today.

English philosopher and economist J.S. Mill (1806 – 1873) contrasted bureaucracy and parliamentary democracy as two opposing types of political system.

The paradoxical successor of the Hegelian tradition of state studies thought was K. Marx. Paradoxical - because he took a critical approach to Hegel's legacy, a successor - because, like Hegel, he associates bureaucracy with government.

Along with the ancient republican institutions, a special bureaucratic apparatus was born. His appearance can be explained by the authority that Augustus possessed. When creating this device, Augustus's private connections were used.
During the empire, the institution of procurators became widespread. Imperial procurators were in charge of a wide variety of affairs. They were responsible for collecting some taxes and performed other functions. As a matter of fact, the imperial bureaucratic apparatus grew out of procurators, freedmen, clients and slaves of the emperor. The highest positions were held by people of the upper classes.
The appointment of the city prefect (prefectus urbi) depended only on the emperor. The main function of the prefect was to maintain order in the city; he was in charge of the city police and had jurisdiction over criminal matters.
Due to the fact that Augustus enjoyed the empire, he appointed legates from representatives of the senatorial class. They commanded armies and administered imperial provinces. The appointment of legates dates back to republican practice. The emperor used this practice to create a circle of officials belonging to the senatorial class, but dependent on the emperor. Numerous inscriptions indicate that imperial legates were equated with propraetors and constituted a special “irregular” link in the senatorial career.
Special equestrian positions acquired great importance in the emerging imperial bureaucracy. The crowning achievement of an equestrian career was the position of commander of the Praetorian Guard - praetorian prefect, to which people were appointed by Augustus himself.
Particularly important missions were entrusted to those close to Augustus. The high position of the princeps allowed him to entrust this to his relatives (amici) and companions (comites).
The sources and precedents of imperial power were varied. The emperor, as the supreme commander, appointed legates and a praetorian prefect; as the bearer of the highest empire, he appointed a city prefect. But this system has many features that we can call patrimonial. Augustus, like a patron, gives instructions and appoints his friends, companions, freedmen and even slaves to various positions. These patrimonial features would later acquire national significance, and the use of personal connections was again an expression of Augustus’ auctoritas.
During the period of dominance, a complete bureaucratic system was created. Its center was the sacred palace (palatum sacrum) and the sacred bedchamber of the emperor. Serving the emperor and his family was not separated from national tasks. The emperor was unlimited in his power, he only consulted with his entourage, who made up the state council - consistorium principis (the very word consistorium, which replaced the word consilium, shows that the council members stood in the presence of the emperor).
The State Council prepared bills and discussed, on behalf of the emperor, policy issues. His chief secretary, quaestor sacri palatii, could speak on behalf of the emperor; The court department was controlled by the praepositus cubiculi (this position was usually occupied by eunuchs), and the magister officiorum was at the head of the imperial services. Higher officials were called comites. Comites (originally came meant companion of the emperor, then it became a specific service rank) were divided into categories. They were followed by notarii. Each highest imperial official had his own office. The officials constituted, as it were, a special army, built on subordination, the highest of them had the same ranks as the army commanders, and the entire staff of the imperial offices constituted, as it were, a special army (militia palatina). Officials were assigned a certain uniform and received the right to a pension.
To carry out all kinds of assignments, there was a whole staff of 1,100 people, the so-called agents in rebus, among whom secret police agents played a special role. The financial department was divided into two categories: national receipts and expenses (aerarium sacrum) and private funds of the emperor.
So, regarding the bureaucratic system, we can say that the apparatus, both in the era of the principate and in the era of dominance, was completely dependent on the emperor.
Having examined in detail the two monarchical forms of government that existed in Ancient Rome, we can come to the conclusion that both of them were monarchies, but of a slightly different nature: the power of the emperor under the principate was formally limited by other institutions, and under the dominance it was unlimited.

Introduction

Chapter 1. Methodological aspects of the study of bureaucracy

1.1 The concept of bureaucracy and the evolution of the theory of bureaucracy

1.2 The origins of bureaucracy in Russia

2. The place of bureaucracy in the system of government

2.1 Features of the system of government bodies

2.2 The relationship between bureaucracy and state power

3. Problems of bureaucracy in the system of government bodies and ways to solve them

3.1 Problems of bureaucracy in the modern system

3.2 Ways to overcome bureaucracy

Conclusion

List of used literature

The relevance of the topic of the final qualifying work is determined by the complexity and inconsistency of the modern period of formation of Russian statehood, crisis manifestations in all spheres of Russian reality, the intensification of the political struggle for influence on the institutions of power and control over the activities of government structures. The numerous shortcomings of the modern public administration system are well known not only to specialists, but also to all those who encounter the work of the bureaucratic apparatus on duty and in everyday life. That is why reforming the Russian state apparatus is one of the most important points in the program for updating the Russian management system.

The purpose of the final qualifying work is to identify the features of bureaucracy and the bureaucratic apparatus in the system of government bodies.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Define the concept of bureaucracy and trace the evolution of the main theories of bureaucracy;

Identify the origins of bureaucracy in Russia;

Consider the system of government bodies;

Identify the relationship between the system of government bodies and bureaucracy;

Explore the problems of bureaucracy in the modern system;

Determine ways to overcome bureaucracy.

This final qualifying work consists of three chapters. The first chapter of the final qualifying work examines the methodological aspects of bureaucracy.

When writing the final qualifying work, the author used such methodological principles as analysis, objectivity, historicism, systematicity, and statistics.

In Hegel's time, bureaucracy was associated primarily with the concept of a centralized European state as a progressive phenomenon for that era. In his concept, the ideas of the rational structure of such a state reached the most refined and complete expression. In “Philosophy of Law” he combined the ethical rationalism of I. Kant and the traditions of German idealism, correlating them with the realities of the institutional structure of the Prussian state of his time. (The comprehensive regulation of the lives of Prussian citizens of that era contrasted sharply with the British system of self-government).

Hegel considered the Prussian state to be the embodiment of the rational structure of human society, both from the point of view of achieving the common good and from the perspective of realizing individual goals of self-regulation of the individual. He viewed the bureaucracy as one of the three main layers of society, along with the layer of industrialists and farmers. Moreover, the bureaucratic layer, or the layer of civil servants, in his opinion, was the only layer in society that embodied and actually realized the general interest. The private interest of civil servants, he believed, coincides with the general interest. The implementation of national goals, as well as the legitimacy of the bureaucracy layer itself, the completeness of the people’s trust in it in many ways depend on the political culture and socio-political behavior of this layer. Hence the need arises to pay special attention to the education and training of representatives of this layer as citizens and as professionals, so that they are at the level of the requirements placed on them and at the level of the tasks that arise before them.

English philosopher and economist J.S. Mill (1806 – 1873) contrasted bureaucracy and parliamentary democracy as two opposing types of political system.

In the works of K. Marx (1818 - 1883), the problem of bureaucracy was not central and did not receive systematic consideration. Nevertheless, Marx’s theoretical legacy in studying the problem of bureaucracy seems interesting and quite valuable, maintaining its relevance to this day, and therefore cannot be ignored.

In his early works, written in 1842 - early 1843, Marx records the manifestation of bureaucratic relations in two areas: 1) within the bureaucracy; 2) between the bureaucracy and society (in other words, in relation to the object of management).

In his work “Toward a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Marx revealed the multi-layered and contradictory nature of bureaucracy. Criticizing the one-sidedness of Hegel, who strives to pass off bureaucracy as an ideal method of administration, Hegel’s narrow views on bureaucracy manifested itself in the fact that he mistook its formal organization for its actual one. At the same time, the German philosopher, from Marx’s point of view, completely incorrectly reflected its nature, self-consciousness and mode of action.

In the process of studying bureaucracy, Marx introduces the category of “state formalism,” which is the transformation of state tasks into clerical tasks and vice versa. At the same time, the goals of the state are transformed into a means of maintaining the sustainability of institutions, forms of regulation of activities and material interests of bureaucrats, the general motive of whose activity and behavior is self-interest. As a result, the bureaucracy, as Marx believed, considers itself the ultimate goal of the state.

Finally, in his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Marx used the category of alienation. Particularly successful and effective was Marx's use of the concept of alienation to analyze the consciousness and psychology of the bureaucrat. The privileged position of the bureaucracy serves as a source of mystification of its consciousness. Marx drew an analogy between religious and “bureaucratic consciousness”; bureaucrats for him are “the Jesuits of the state and its theologians.” Therefore, the consciousness of a bureaucrat is a kind of magic, a formula for religious worship, an instrument of mystification and deception of oneself and others. Due to social limitations, officials are often unable to discover the reality behind the appearance and the essence behind the existing. He takes it for granted that a given order prescribed by a particular law is equivalent to order in general.

The undoubted merit of Marxist analysis, as Western researchers note, is that it made bureaucracy an empirically tangible phenomenon and presented its description, which has not lost its relevance to this day. Modern analysts continue to argue, for example, that bureaucracy creates vicious circles on which its functioning is based, that subordinate officials place initiative and resolution of difficult situations in the hands of superiors, and the latter leaves subordinates the need to cope with individual private complications, not allowing information about them into the hands of their superiors. the upper echelons of power (so that they “don’t bother the authorities”). Such solidarity based on incompetence closely connects the lower links of the hierarchy with the upper ones and with the entire bureaucratic organization as a system. You can renounce bureaucratic unity only by simultaneously renouncing your position, and at the same time the privileges and material advantages associated with it. Such a feature of the bureaucratic organization as careerism, expressed in the fact that the essential meaning of work is subordinated to the desire to maintain or increase personal status within the bureaucratic hierarchy, continues to remain relevant.

The first scientist to provide a systematic analysis of state bureaucracy was the German sociologist M. Weber (1864-1920). The main source in which the theory of bureaucracy of the German sociologist is most fully presented is his fundamental and final work - “Economy and Society” (1922), which remained unfinished. The problem of the power of bureaucracy was addressed by Weber in political articles, in particular in his article “Parliament and Government in Reformed Germany” (1917).

Weber characterizes patrimonial bureaucracy and rational bureaucracy as two opposite types in many respects, but does not draw an insurmountable boundary between them. In his theoretical constructions, patrimonial bureaucracy occupies an intermediate position between these two types. According to Weber, under purely traditional dominance, management personnel do not possess such features of bureaucratic administration as a clear delineation of spheres of authority, a rational hierarchy of positions, appointment on the basis of a voluntary contract, special training as a condition of holding a position and a permanent salary. However, all of the above features, except, apparently, only contractual relations, may be present to one degree or another in the patrimonial bureaucracy.

Thus, in contrast to purely traditional management structures, patrimonial bureaucracy also contains some rational elements. But the defining feature of patrimonial bureaucracies (as well as patrimonial governance) is the personal, and not the formal legal, nature of power relations. Therefore, an element of irrationalism is inevitably present in a patrimonial bureaucracy, since the head of such a bureaucracy is not bound by any formal rules and in many cases can act completely arbitrarily.

As M.V. points out. Maslovsky, the concept of “patrimonial bureaucracy” in the works of M. Weber apparently does not mean an ideal (pure) type, but only specific examples of administrative structures that have certain rational features, but operate under conditions of traditional domination. In addition to the personal relationships between the head of state and officials, patrimonial bureaucracies are characterized by a tendency to appropriate public positions by the officials who occupy them. The basis of the power of the patrimonial bureaucracy is formed primarily by the assignment by officials of positions and the associated privileges and economic advantages. But the extreme development of the tendency towards such appropriation means the loss of bureaucratic character by the bureaucracy and the transformation of patrimonial bureaucracy into decentralized “class” domination, which is no longer bureaucratic.

If patrimonial states existed everywhere in various historical eras, a developed bureaucratic apparatus was formed in them only in isolated cases. Historical examples of relatively highly developed forms of bureaucratic management in a patrimonial state include Weber's bureaucracies that existed in Ancient Egypt, China, the late Roman and Byzantine Empires, as well as in Western Europe during the era of absolutism.

Rational bureaucracy is explored by Weber in his analysis of legal domination. Characteristic of such dominance is that the members of the organization are subject to a system of impersonal abstract rules that can be changed in accordance with accepted procedures. The purest type of legal domination is exercised by the bureaucratic administrative apparatus, which consists of officials acting in accordance with the following principles:

1) they are personally free and subject to authority only as far as their impersonal official duties are concerned;

2) they are organized into a clearly established hierarchy of positions;

3) each position has a strictly defined scope of authority;

4) an official holds a position on the basis of a voluntary contractual agreement;

5) candidates for positions are selected on the basis of their special qualifications on a competitive basis after passing examinations or by preference for diplomas, which requires candidates to have appropriate specialized education; officials are appointed to office, not elected;

6) the reward is a permanent cash salary with the right to a pension;

7) the position is considered as the only or at least the main occupation of the person holding it;

8) there is a system of career advancement in accordance with seniority or merit;

9) the official is separated from the ownership of the means of management and does not appropriate his position;

10) he is subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in his activities.

Weber noted that the widespread spread of bureaucracy (in the state apparatus and political parties, in universities, in the army, etc.) is caused, first of all, by the fact that it turns out to be more effective than any other form of government. Accuracy, reliability, speed, impersonality, discipline, foreseeability, knowledge, constancy of the management process and continuity, unification, unity of command, subordination, specialization, minimizing conflicts and economy - all this, according to the German sociologist, reaches its highest development in a bureaucratic organization. In addition, a bureaucratic organization is the most rational institutional device for solving complex management problems in modern society, and the basis of its rationality lies in the impersonality of its functioning, which provides guarantees against the arbitrariness of specific performers. The trend of bureaucratization of modern - mass - society (as well as the process of rationalization) was defined by the German sociologist as “the fate of the era.”

Thus, the bureaucracy, which serves as an effective instrument of management in modern society, is completely unprepared to perform the function of determining public policy. The invasion of the bureaucracy into the political sphere, when it turns from an executor into a body for making political decisions, was regarded by Weber as an abuse of power.

Weber's theory of bureaucracy became the pinnacle of classical rationalism and, together with the Wilson-Goodnow concept, largely served as the basis for the development of administrative sciences in the 20th century.

It should be noted that the formation of modern concepts of state bureaucracy took place under the direct influence of the theory of organizations that emerged after the First World War, which subsequently developed quite intensively as a new branch of knowledge. At the same time, the interest of researchers was fueled and encouraged by the needs of private entrepreneurship, the search for new forms of increasing labor productivity and profitability of enterprises. The study of government organizations proceeded more slowly, but the common, fundamentally significant features of any organization allowed researchers to use methodological developments. By the way, Weber himself distinguished between two forms of bureaucracy - public and private, which gave reason to consider him both a classic of the theory of organizations and the founder of modern concepts of state bureaucracy.

Thus, the emergence of modern scientific ideas about state bureaucracy was preceded, firstly, by the recognition of the principle of separation of political and bureaucratic activities and the understanding of the need to professionalize managerial work, and secondly, by the identification of the specific features of bureaucracy as a special way of organizing joint activities and as a special social group . Ultimately, the state bureaucracy could now be considered as an independent object of scientific study.

The theory of public administration and bureaucracy received its further development in the works of the “classical school” and the school of “human relations”, representing the direction of “scientific management”, which prevailed in the first third of the 20th century.

Representatives of the “classical school” (A. Fayol, L. White, L. Urwick, D. Mooney, etc.) focused on the study of organizational structures, their hierarchy, official and communication flows, impersonal elements of the organization, regulatory regulation of all aspects of the organization’s activities and on this basis they proposed models of formal structures and relationships.

The goal of the “classical school” was to develop the principles of administrative and public administration. Thus, the French scientist A. Fayol formulated 14 general principles of management: division of labor, power (the right to give orders and the force that forces them to obey), discipline, unity of management, unity of leadership, subordination of private interests to general ones, fair remuneration of personnel, centralization, hierarchy, order (everyone should know their place), justice (equal pay for equal work), constancy of personnel, initiative, unity of personnel (“corporate spirit”). A. Fayol's ideas had much in common with the theories of American management classics - F. Taylor, G. Emerson, G. Ford. Almost all the “classics” were convinced that following the principles they developed would lead to the success of public administration in different countries. The most important tenets of classical theory can be summarized as follows: science instead of traditional skills, harmony instead of contradictions, cooperation instead individual work, maximum productivity at every workplace.

Within the framework of the classical school, the administrative-public administration system appears as a hierarchical organization of a linear-functional type, regulated from top to bottom, with a clear definition of the function of each job category. This model is quite effective in conditions of a stable social environment and similar management tasks and situations. It still finds its application at various levels of management.

In general, the strengths of the classical approach lie in the scientific understanding of all management connections in the system of administrative and public administration, in increasing labor productivity through operational management. At the same time, representatives of the classical school did not study the properties of the organization’s variability, its adaptation in the external environment, contradictions and internal sources development, and most importantly, they “forgot” about the human factor.

In the 30s The "human relations" school emerged as a reaction to the shortcomings of the classical approach, in response to its failure to recognize human relations as a fundamental element of organizational effectiveness. Representatives of this direction (for example, American scientists A. Maslow, E. Mayo, M. Follett, etc.) focused on the organization as a human system, on the sociological and socio-psychological aspects of the behavior of its members. In particular, in their research they paid attention to the analysis of psychological factors that cause workers’ satisfaction with their work, since in a number of experiments they managed to achieve an increase in labor productivity by improving the psychological climate and increasing motivation.

The need to supplement the Weber-Wilsonian concept of bureaucracy and its certain limitations were realized during the Second World War and shortly after it.

Weber's claim that bureaucracy is supremely efficient has also been criticized. According to such scientists as R. Merton, F. Selznick, T. Parsons, A. Gouldner and others, who used a functional approach to the study of bureaucracy, Weber did not take into account the possibility of various kinds of “dysfunctions” manifesting in bureaucratic organizations. Thus, the American sociologist R. Merton described the most common dysfunction of a bureaucratic organization, the essence of which is the so-called “substitution of goals,” when the norms and rules followed by bureaucrats turn from a means of achieving organizational goals into an end in itself. The instrumental and formal aspects of a bureaucratic position are considered more important than the content of the job itself. Moreover, these dysfunctional aspects of the system are reinforced when, in response to, for example, client protests, the bureaucrat defends himself by acting in an even more formal and rigid manner. In other words, the same structural element can have, according to Merton, both functional (for example, predictability) and dysfunctional consequences in terms of organizational goals - rigidity and inability to adapt easily, formalism and ritualism.

In the works of the American sociologist A. Gouldner, bureaucracy is viewed as a normal and “healthy” institution, and the negative manifestations of bureaucratic practice in the form of formalism, inertia, red tape, etc., that is, everything that is denoted by the term “bureaucracy”, are characterized as dysfunctions , "pathology". In one of his works, Gouldner noted that if a boss notices a lack of motivation among employees subordinate to him, he begins to control them more meticulously. This approach on the part of the boss can create two problems. First, if workers are motivated, they can do their jobs without scrutiny. Secondly, petty and over-picky control is associated with restrictions and punishments. Thus, rules developed in order to, by eliminating the personal element, reduce or eliminate the tension inherent in the relationship of subordination and control, as a result, perpetuate this tension by “spurring up” low employee motivation.

The original interpretation of the dysfunctional aspects of the work of bureaucratic organizations is contained in the works of the famous French sociologist M. Crozier, whose name in the West is associated primarily with the title of his fundamental work - “The Bureaucratic Phenomenon”, thanks to which he became widely known in Europe since 1963, and since 1964 with the transfer of his work to English language, and on the American continent. Despite the long and fairly close attention of sociologists to the topic of bureaucracy, despite M. Weber’s brilliant description of the “ideal type of bureaucracy” and all the post-Weberian literature, the problem of bureaucracy, according to Crozier, has not yet received proper resolution. It still remains “the ideological myth of our time.”

The paradox, from the point of view of the French sociologist, stems from the duality of the very phenomenon of bureaucracy, which was already outlined in the works of M. Weber. On the one hand, the development of bureaucratic processes is a consequence and manifestation of rationality, and in this sense, bureaucracy is superior to other forms of organization. On the other hand, it seems that organizations of this type succeed precisely because of their bad qualities, i.e. thanks to the fact that they reduce their members to a situation of standardization. In this sense, the bureaucracy acts “as a kind of Leviathan, which is preparing to enslave the entire human race.” Previous studies of bureaucracy, according to M. Crozier, did not clearly identify the meaning of this contradiction.

The originality of M. Crozier’s approach lay in the fact that in the dysfunctions of the bureaucracy he saw not a deviation, but a constitutive property in the functioning of modern bureaucratic organizations, their “latent function.” Paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, it is precisely dysfunctions, as the French sociologist pointed out, that preserve and strengthen bureaucracy: “A bureaucratic system of organization is one in which dysfunctions have become the main element of balance.”

Western scientists also note that bureaucratic management is effective if environmental conditions are constant and management tasks and situations are of the same type. If the problems are diverse, change rapidly and appear in different aspects and relationships, then the bureaucratic organization faces difficult obstacles to overcome, and the principles of hierarchy, specialization, impersonality and normative regulation of all aspects of the organization’s activities only aggravate the situation. Thus, following rules can lead to a lack of flexibility. The impersonal nature of relationships gives rise to bureaucratic indifference and insensitivity. Hierarchy prevents individual responsibility and initiative.

G. Schmidt and H. Treiber, having compared the main characteristics of administrative-state activities in the second half of the 20th century with the activities of the “classical type” bureaucracy, developed an ideal type of modern “political bureaucracy” (see Appendix 1.).

In general, theories based on the non-classical paradigm (including the behavioral approach, which was very popular in the 50-60s of the XX century), “focused research discourse on the study of people - the meaning-making factor of the organization.” Within the framework of these theories, the factors of personal motivation of a person, job satisfaction as the main factor in increasing the efficiency of the organization were revealed, and mechanisms were developed for the development of employee initiative, which passes through the delegation of rights and responsibilities to self-government. The main goal of the school of behavioral sciences, in very general terms, was to improve the efficiency of a bureaucratic organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources.

The English sociologist M. Elbrow compiled a fairly complete classification of the concepts (meanings) of bureaucracy, which was later supplemented by the American sociologist F. Riggs:

1) officials (officials, service personnel, bureaucrats);

2) apparatus (system of interconnected officials, administrative apparatus);

3) an organization with a staff of employees (any organization: large, complex, modern, bureaucratic);

4) bureaucratized state (a political system in the management of which the dominant role belongs to its officials);

5) bureaucrats in power (government carried out by bureaucrats; bureaucrats as the ruling class);

6) bureaucracy (bureaucratic behavior, organizational inefficiency);

7) bureau-rationality (rational organization, effective administration);

8) administration carried out by officials (performing the tasks of an organization by its staff or officials);

9) bureaucracy (“ideal” type of bureaucracy by M. Weber and other authors, characterized by a number of certain features);

10) pathobureaucracy (“ideal” type of a variable series of negative properties inherent in the apparatus or system of officials);

11) bureaucratic society (any society dominated by bureaucracy: pre-industrial bureaucratic society, bureaucratic society).

The above classification indicates that to date, the conceptualization of bureaucracy in the social sciences in the West is characterized by vagueness and a fairly large divergence of semantic meanings. This becomes the cause of “terminological and semantic confusion”, which is characteristic of works devoted to the analysis of the problem of bureaucracy. As one foreign author put it, “bureaucracy seems to be a phenomenon that everyone talks about, that everyone feels and knows from experience, but which defies conceptualization.”

It should be noted that the historical foundations of the Russian bureaucracy and Western European bureaucracies are also significantly different. “Gathering the Russian land” necessarily required centralization in management, and centralization inevitably gave rise to bureaucracy. Our nobility came from the bureaucracy and was primarily a service class.

The history of the Russian state reveals the deep roots and traditions of the Russian bureaucracy, which has its own specific characteristics. We have never had a European-style civil society. The Russian state has always dominated Russian society. Economic transformations, for example, were carried out only from above, that is, in the interests, first of all, of the bureaucracy and were carried out by it through state coercion and violence against the rest of society. On this basis, a bureaucratic tradition of political thought and practice was formed: a citizen is the property of the state and all his actions are either determined by the authorities or are an attack on the authorities.

At that time, the state became a comprehensive tool for implementing tasks aimed at its reproduction. All spheres of public life in this case required total control by the state. Without this, the very existence of a bureaucratic state became impossible. In turn, the need for complete control and respect for the interests of the state requires the constant reproduction of an apparatus that can exercise this control and protect its interests.

In the Russian tradition, the concept of “bureaucracy” is initially assessed negatively. Moreover, we can say that in the Russian mentality “bureaucrat” and “bureaucracy” are dirty words. Russian social thought from A.N. Radishchev to V.S. Solovyov, from A.S. Khomyakov to V.V. Rozanova was very critical of the “unique power of the St. Petersburg bureaucracy under the pretext of autocracy.” The official in the public consciousness is associated primarily with the characters of Gogol, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Sukhovo-Kobylin.

According to A.G. Levinson, the concept of “bureaucracy” in a negative sense “expresses an attitude towards the activities of a specialized social group of (civil) employees, namely: the reproach of this group from society for its failure to fulfill its obligations to society, for the abuse of the power over other groups in society, which she disposes.” This concept can also mean the separation of the executive bodies of a certain organization from itself, when “a body subordinate to an organization, to society, turns into a body subordinating those whose will it is called upon to carry out; the servant becomes the master."

E.G. Morozova rightly points out that the term “bureaucracy” is actually synonymous with the term “civil service.” “After all, to the extent that the civil service in practice goes beyond the scope of mechanical execution and application of laws, it becomes a “cracy” - bureaucracy, administrationocracy, administrative power. And it is precisely in this capacity that it interests political science and society as a whole.” That is why in our study the term “state bureaucracy” is used on an equal basis with the term “civil service”.

It should be noted that very often they mix up the universal bureaucratic principles of organizing management, bureaucracy as a social layer that carries out the day-to-day management of the state machine, and bureaucracy - a social disease of managers.

In Russia, the separation of the civil service into a special area of public-professional activity and the emergence of bureaucracy went in parallel with the emergence and strengthening of state power, the creation of the Russian centralized state, and then the Russian Empire. The abolition of localism in 1682 marked the beginning of the transformation of the civil service in Russia and showed the need to streamline the new system of appointments and debug production into ranks to unite the emerging bureaucracy as the support of developing absolutism. Even during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich, a draft “Charter on the seniority of boyars, okolnichy and Duma people” was prepared, which was not implemented. Political and state centralization necessarily entailed a bureaucratic system built on the same principles, directly and exclusively subordinate to the supreme power, the allocation of a special social group of officials vested with power and becoming an all-pervasive and dominant force in society.

The emergence of a professional civil service and bureaucracy in Russia was associated with the state reforms of Peter I, whose creation of a “regular state” (in the modern sense - a “rationally managed state”) required the strengthening of the administrative apparatus and its driving force - the “regular” (“rational”) bureaucracy. We can say that it was from this time that “professional activities to ensure the powers of state bodies” appeared - as is enshrined in modern Russian legislation. From the end of the 18th century. - the beginning of Peter's reign - organizational transformations of the central and local state apparatus invariably corresponded with the bureaucratic and personnel support of their activities - the improvement of the public service system.

The transition from service to the sovereign to public service with the transition from individual official assignments to the boyars and the creation of corresponding institutions (Orders) to a coordinated, unified system of central and local government institutions with a permanent composition of officials required solutions to the problems of organizing the public service. In parallel, approximately 1719-1722. work was carried out to create legislation on the civil service, although the collection of information on European legislation (English, Swedish) began earlier and continued with the collection of necessary materials by the Foreign College in France, Holland, Denmark and Prussia. The preparatory materials contained the original texts of their laws on rank production - the Swedish charters on ranks of 1696 and 1705, the regulations of the Danish kings Christian V (1699), Frederick IV (1717), etc., translations into Russian, as well as a consolidated generalizing document about this question. Russian practice was summarized in the form of “Testimonies of the most ancient Russian civil and court officials with an explanation of each” prepared by order of the Tsar.

Peter I personally worked on and edited four times the prepared by A.I. Osterman drafted the project, which he then sent for discussion in the Senate, Military and Admiralty Collegiums. After considering the comments received, the draft was finally submitted to the Senate for approval by the king. On January 24, 1722, Peter I signed the famous “Table of Ranks” (full title: “Table of Ranks of all ranks of military, civil and courtiers, who are in what class of ranks; and who are in the same class, they have the seniority of the time of entry into the rank among themselves, however, military men are higher than others, even if they are older, who were awarded in that class"). This legislative act determined the foundations of public service in Russia for the next two centuries.

The reasons for publishing the Table of Ranks were based on socio-political needs. On the one hand, it was influenced by the complication of the social structure of society, and therefore already at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. it was necessary to separate the civil service into an independent sphere of activity to ensure its relative independence, and at the same time - the creation of a special, professionally, socially and corporately designated group of civil servants. On the other hand, the strengthening of state-legal principles in the activities of state power (when the legal instruments of its policy acquired system-forming importance in the creation of state administrative structures) and the increasing role of laws as acts of formalizing the political will of the monarch and the main source of law, which had to be carried out by all subjects independently on position in the class and service hierarchy. Under these conditions, the civil service was also transferred to legislative regulation, which would be based on the “royal will” determined by law in the form of the competence of one or another official to resolve public affairs, deviation from which was considered as a failure to comply with the instructions of the head of state, from whom the force of the law came , and “the main unity of command” in the country.

The "Table of Ranks" in its meaning primarily provided for a hierarchy of positions according to which rank was given, but at the same time it was not always possible to separate positions and ranks. The "Table" consisted of a table that actually defined 14 classes (ranks) with their corresponding ranks and positions of each of the two types of public service - military (land service and naval) and civil (secular and court) service, as well as nineteen commentators his "points". Military service was placed in first place - military ranks were “higher than others.” In this case, rank can be considered as a title, and the right to it was given by the position. Since the "Table" regulated mainly the status of the noble bureaucracy, the lower officer ranks in the army and minor civil servants - clerks, scribes and others - were not included in it.

The legalization was based on the preferential right of entry into the civil service of nobles (mainly hereditary landed nobility), who had preferential conditions for entry into the service and rapid advancement through its ranks. At the same time, the authorities, of course, took into account the importance of the nobility both as its social support and as a more educated class in general. It was also taken into account that the nobles had property security, since public service itself was considered a class duty for the nobles and provided quite a small material reward. It was assumed that each employee was obliged to go through them, starting from bottom to top, having served in each class for a certain number of years, but the period of stay in them could be reduced for special merits in the service. To move to the next class, it was necessary to occupy a vacant higher position corresponding to the next rank.

Such a civil service system intended to ensure the replacement of vacancies indicated in the table and the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills through the experience of civil service - initially the main means of training employees. Mentioned in the “Table” was also the payment of cash salaries, which during Peter’s reign began to supplant the distribution of land and contributed to the formation of the bureaucracy as a social group that did not belong to the landowning class, but stood guard over the interests of the supreme power and the feudal state.

In the conditions of the class system in Russia, public service was associated with the obligatory presence of a noble state and the official had to have the status of a nobleman, therefore the “Table” provided that everyone who had served the first - lowest - class rank had the right to receive nobility.

Peter I laid the foundations of a professional civil service. The provisions defined by the “Table of Ranks” consolidated the basic principles of the state of Russian bureaucracy for the next almost two centuries. The further development of the public service system reflected the policy of the supreme authorities in the field of state and legal construction in Russia, which manifested itself in the institutionalization of the public service in two directions - the general definition of personnel policy and the formation of a professional bureaucracy as a tool for managing society. From this time on, bureaucracy began to occupy an important place in the implementation of state policy, becoming the “blood and flesh” of the state mechanism of power. In post-Petrine times, during the second quarter of the 18th century, the “Table of Ranks” was the main regulator of the civil service and the legitimation that determined the position of Russian officials.

Many features of Russian bureaucracy, unfortunately, are reproduced in modern Russia.

Today, the public administration system in Russian Federation characterized by numerous negative traits, the reasons for which partly lie in its historical past. The Russian bureaucratic apparatus does not correspond to Weber's concept of rational bureaucracy.

Bureaucratization and corruption of the apparatus, widespread participation of officials in commercial enterprises, the combination of several positions in legislative and executive bodies by the same people, legal nihilism, insufficient elaboration of legislative acts, decrees and resolutions, ill-considered statements by representatives of the “top”, attempts to limit constitutional human rights, the inability to resist the growing wave of crime - all this seriously compromises the bureaucracy.

Civil service appeared in the system of social relations as a necessary condition for the normal functioning of society and as a means of ensuring other types of social activity, primarily production, ensuring production mainly in an intellectual sense. It is not for nothing that for a long time service was generally understood as the sphere of mental work. However, at present, such a thesis is rejected as a criterion for delimiting service from other types of social activities

The formal sign of a service (its organization) is always the replacement of a position. A position is understood as a primary structural unit of an organization established in the prescribed manner, which determines the content and scope of the powers of the holder, its person.

Analyzing Art. 1 of the Federal Law “On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation” the following features of the civil service can be distinguished:

firstly, this is a professional activity, i.e. carried out on the basis of special knowledge and skills;

secondly, in the process of carrying out this activity, the competence of state bodies is exercised,

thirdly, this activity is aimed at ensuring the functioning of government bodies;

fourthly, such activity represents the performance of official duties by specific persons holding full-time government positions. And finally, this activity must be paid exclusively from the state budget.

Public service is carried out in the apparatus of representative and judicial authorities, in executive authorities, as well as in other state bodies that implement its goals and functions on behalf of the state and are classified as public service by acts of legislation of the Russian Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Article 2 of the Federal Law “On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation” public service includes the following types of public service: state civil service, military, law enforcement.

The civil service can be generally functional - the implementation of public service functions that do not differ in industry specifics (for example, the activities of personnel in the administration of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, ministries); special - the implementation of the powers specifically established in regulatory legal acts of employees holding positions in government bodies that have expressed sectoral competence, which determines the specifics of the personnel’s activities (for example, activities in the courts, diplomatic service, service in railway transport). However, the division of the civil public service based on the presence of specific functions is very conditional, because the entire system of government bodies, especially executive authorities, is based on the principle of sectoral construction.

Article 3 of the Law “On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation” establishes the following principles of civil service:

federalism, ensuring the unity of the public service system and compliance with the constitutional division of jurisdiction and powers between federal government bodies and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as state bodies);

legality;

priority of human and civil rights and freedoms;

unity of the legal and organizational foundations of the federal civil service and the civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

equal access of citizens who speak the state language of the Russian Federation to the civil service and equal conditions for serving it, regardless of gender, race, nationality, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances not related to the professional and business qualities of a civil servant;

relationship between civil service and municipal service;

openness of the civil service and its accessibility to public control, objective informing of the public about the activities of civil servants;

professionalism and competence of civil servants;

protection of civil servants from unlawful interference in their professional activities of both government bodies and officials, and individuals and legal entities.

These principles are the fundamental principles that should be followed in more specific legal regulation of the public service. All these principles are of a constitutional and legal nature, which ensures their stability and strict observance in regulating the public service.

In 2002, in order to increase public confidence in state institutions, provide conditions for the conscientious and effective performance of official duties by civil servants, eliminate abuse in the public service, and until the adoption of federal laws on types of public service by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin approved Decree No. 885 “On the approval of general principles of official conduct of civil servants.” According to this Decree, the principles of official conduct of civil servants represent the fundamentals of behavior of civil servants, which they should be guided by in the performance of official (official) duties.

Federal Law No. 58-FZ of July 27, 2003 “On the Civil Service System” is quite compact and includes only 20 articles, which contain significant changes in the organization of the civil service of the Russian Federation compared to Federal Law No. 199 of July 31, 1995 -FZ “On the Fundamentals of the Civil Service of the Russian Federation”. His articles consistently present general issues of organization and functioning, as well as the conditions of public service, and the public service management system.

In development of the Federal Law of July 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ “On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation”, Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” was adopted.

This Federal Law establishes the concept of state civil service: state civil service is a type of public service that represents the professional official activity of citizens in positions of the state civil service to ensure the execution of the powers of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation, and persons holding government positions in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The law establishes the division of the state civil service into the federal state civil service and the state civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In pursuance of Federal Law No. 58-FZ of July 27, 2004, the President of the Russian Federation on December 31, 2005 issued Decree No. 1574 on the register of positions in the federal state civil service, which includes the names of positions in the federal state civil service.

Federal Law No. 79-FZ of July 27, 2004 regulates issues of the state civil service as one of the types of public service defined by Federal Law No. 58 FZ of July 27, 2003 “On the civil service system of the Russian Federation.” Federal Law No. 79-FZ of July 27, 2004, in its subject matter of regulation, covers a wide area of public relations, defines the rules for a specific type of public service: establishes the legal, organizational and economic foundations of the federal state civil service and the state civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The subject of regulation of the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ is relations related to entry into the federal state civil service and state civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, its passage and termination, as well as the determination of the legal status (status) of a federal civil servant and state civil servant. civil servant of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The main idea of the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ is to ensure a unified approach to the legal regulation of the state civil service, its organization as a whole, detailing and specifying the norms of the basic Federal Law of July 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ, aimed at ensuring the relationship of the state civil service with other types of public service (law enforcement and military) and with the municipal service.

These characteristics make it possible to classify Federal Law No. 79-FZ of July 27, 2004 as one of the types of system-forming federal laws on the public service - the state civil service, since it contains the basic concepts and principles of the state civil service, and also systematically defines the legal, organizational and economic foundations of the federal state civil service and state civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. One of the main differences between this Federal Law No. 79-FZ of July 27, 2004 and the previous legislation on public service, in particular the Federal Law of July 31, 1995 No. 119-FZ “On the fundamentals of the civil service of the Russian Federation”, in which the service civil servants were mainly regulated by labor law, is that in accordance with the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ, labor legislation should be applied only in cases where official relations are not regulated by federal legislation on civil service and state civil service.

Federal Law No. 79-FZ of July 27, 2004 contains a number of new fundamental provisions that should be paid attention to, for example, the establishment of uniform principles for the formation of personnel in the civil service, professional training and retraining, advanced training and internships for civil servants, and the provision of social guarantees in the civil service and remuneration for the official activities of civil servants. The Law introduces and regulates in sufficient detail the goals, objectives and procedure for forming a personnel reserve and monitoring compliance with state legislation on the civil service.

Instead of the existing categories of civil service of groups “A”, “B” and “C”, four categories of civil service are introduced: managers, assistants and advisers, specialists and supporting specialists. Compared to the current legislation, the division of positions into categories has undergone significant changes. At the same time, the division of positions into groups (highest, main, leading, senior and junior) has been preserved. A feature of Federal Law No. 79-FZ of July 27, 2004 is the introduction for civil servants of class ranks of the state civil service (instead of qualification ranks), correlated with military ranks and special ranks of law enforcement service.

In contrast to the military and law enforcement service, the state civil service aims to ensure the powers of federal government bodies, persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation (in this case we are talking about the federal public service), and to ensure the powers of the subject of the Russian Federation, as well as the powers of state bodies subject of the Russian Federation and persons holding positions of the subject of the Russian Federation (state civil service of the subject of the Russian Federation).

Military service is a type of federal public service, which is the professional service activity of citizens in military positions in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military (special) formations and bodies performing functions to ensure the defense and security of the state.

Law enforcement service is a type of federal public service, which is the professional activity of citizens in law enforcement positions in government bodies, services and institutions that carry out functions to ensure security, law and order, to fight crime, to protect human and civil rights and freedoms. The Federal Law "On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation" for the first time defined the law enforcement service. The legislator defined this type of federal public service as the professional service activities of citizens in law enforcement positions in government bodies, services and institutions performing functions to ensure security, law and order, to fight crime, to protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

The emergence of the Federal Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” is the most important stage in the implementation of the Federal program “Reform of the Civil Service 2003-2005”. ", approved by the President of the Russian Federation on November 19, 2002. In December 2005, the President of the Russian Federation, by his Decree No. 1437, extended the implementation period of the Federal program “Reform of the civil service of the Russian Federation (2003-2005) for 2006-2007.” The Presidential Decree noted that at the stage of civil service reform in 2006-2007, it is planned to fully implement the priority areas of reform of the civil service of the Russian Federation, defined in Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2002 No. 1336, to continue work on the formation of an integrated system civil service, solve a set of problems related to the regulatory legal design and improvement of the functioning mechanisms of types of civil service, optimization of the personnel composition of civil servants, and the formation of a public service management system.

Reform of the civil service system in 2006-2007. should solve the problems existing in the current laws regulating the civil service.

One of the main problems of the Federal Law “On the Civil Service of the Russian Federation” is the problem of disciplinary liability of state civil servants. An analysis of the regulation of the procedure for the onset of disciplinary liability of civil servants allows us to state that the solution to this issue largely remains at the discretion of the manager. The manager may, but should not, take disciplinary action against an unscrupulous or poorly performing civil servant. The manager is not responsible for his inaction or failure to take measures in relation to a civil servant who performs his duties in bad faith.

Resolving issues of preventing and resolving conflicts of interest remains at the discretion of the manager. The manager may, at his own subjective discretion, consider the conflict to be insignificant and allow the civil servant to perform official duties in a state of conflict of interest. It may or may not punish for intentional actions in a situation of conflict of interest, or their systematic occurrence. The manager bears no real responsibility for conniving with a civil servant who is in a state of conflict of interest. As a result, corruption and bribery in the government system are flourishing in Russia. The most significant scale of corruption processes in Russia occurred at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. This is explained, first of all, by a change in the socio-economic formation, the widespread imposition of new moral values, the central place among which is occupied by the cult of personal prosperity and enrichment, and money is the measure and equivalent of well-being in life. The scale of the spread of corruption in the early and mid-nineties of the last century forced the President of Russia to sign the Decree of April 4, 1992 “On the fight against corruption in the public service system”, Decree of April 8, 1997 “On priority measures to prevent corruption and reduce budgetary expenses when organizing the purchase of products for state needs,” as well as the Decree of June 6, 1996 “On measures to strengthen discipline in the public service system.” In order to create effective mechanisms for preventing corruption and abuse in the country, the President of Russia signed a Decree of May 15, 1997 “On the provision of information about income and property”, etc. However, in many ways, the above and other regulatory legal acts aimed at preventing and suppressing corruption in the public service system of our country turned out to be declarative, since there was no effective mechanism for their implementation and control over compliance with the regulations contained in them.

The widespread and systemic nature of corruption has led to the fact that state and regional policies are often directly dictated by the private interests of persons directly in power or capable of directly influencing decision-making. Numerous data indicate that crime, including organized and professional crime, has widely penetrated and taken root in almost all government structures. A certain number of employees of state and municipal authorities are affected by corruption in its most common manifestation - bribery. According to expert estimates, annual economic losses from corruption in the country amount to tens of billions of dollars. Corrupt behavior has become an integral part, often even the norm, of economic and other activities related to the management of large financial flows. For bribes, quotas and licenses are issued for the development of natural deposits, the extraction of many other irreplaceable natural resources, tenders and auctions are organized with a predetermined result, contracts for various types of work by specific companies are organized.

Numerous facts of corruption in the sphere of state and municipal administration are noted: employment by officials commercial activities; participation directly, through intermediaries or members of their families in the management of various types of business structures; providing sponsored firms with assistance in obtaining illegal benefits and privileges, acquiring property, facilitating or unscheduled completion of regulatory procedures and paperwork, obtaining permits and quotas; failure to take action on facts of violation of legislation, including tax legislation, for the inaction of antimonopoly authorities against cartel agreements in fuel, electricity, production of construction and other materials; veiled forms of trading in entrusted state or municipal property, important official information

Recently, there has been a tendency towards a tough fight in the system of corruption and bribery in Russia.

Since V.V. came to power. Putin, he more than once spoke in his annual message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation about the need for administrative reform: “the state apparatus must be effective, compact and working. The current work of the state apparatus, unfortunately, promotes corruption. Corruption is not the result of a lack of repression, but a direct consequence of restrictions on economic freedoms.”

This statement was reflected in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2002 No. 1336 “On the federal program “Reform of the civil service of the Russian Federation (2003-2005).”

Also, in November 2003, the President of the Russian Federation issued Decree No. 1384 “On the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the fight against corruption.” This Decree was issued in order to improve state policy to combat corruption in federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments, eliminate the causes and conditions that give rise to corruption, eradicate abuses and suppress crimes using official position, ensure compliance with regulations service ethics by civil servants, creating favorable conditions for the development of the country's economy. The Council includes the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. An Anti-Corruption Commission and a Commission for Resolving Conflicts of Interest are being created under the Council.

The President of the Russian Federation, in his 2006 Address to the Federal Assembly, made the topic of combating corruption one of the central ones. If in his previous message the President spoke about the “arrogant caste of officials” who view the public service as a type of business, and demanded the adoption of measures that could stop the negative trends of the country coming under the control of an ineffective corrupt bureaucracy, then the next appeal to this topic indicates that that the activities of public authorities of all types and levels in the field of combating corruption are still insufficient and have not yet produced tangible results. This is evidenced by the lack of shifts in the perception of the problem of combating corruption on the part of the majority of the population of our country, which is confirmed by numerous sociological surveys.

The President’s call and warning to large businessmen and officials of any rank to realize that the state will not carelessly look at their activities if they derive illegal benefits from special relationships with each other indicates that the fight against corruption is moving to a new qualitative level. This level requires consistent systematic work by the entire state and society to suppress the activities of corrupt officials at any level and create effective conditions that prevent the further development of corruption.

Despite the measures taken by law enforcement agencies to combat corruption, they are not effective enough and do not produce tangible results, as evidenced by statistics, according to which recently an average of only about 25 thousand crimes against state power and the interests of the public service have been detected per year , local governments.

According to data for 2006, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs identified 30.6 thousand crimes against the interests of the public service. 22.2 thousand criminal cases were sent to the courts based on them. At the same time, not much more than 8 thousand persons who committed crimes of this category were brought to criminal responsibility. At the same time, the number of people convicted for these crimes in a given period largely depends not so much on the actual prevalence of these crimes, but on the activity of the prosecutor’s office, the investigative apparatus and regulatory authorities, as well as the ability of employees of these services to monitor and uncover such crimes, to investigate competently and bring them to court, in accordance with the decisions and sentences of which the guilty persons would be subject to appropriate penalties and liability.

In general, in the period 2000-2005 on the territory of the Russian Federation, the number of corruption-related crimes identified by law enforcement agencies increased by 53 percent; in three months of 2007, law enforcement units, and this is, first of all, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, identified almost 18.5 thousand .. crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments, including more than 3.5 thousand. facts of receiving bribes. Almost 4.3 thousand persons who committed crimes of this category were brought to criminal responsibility.

As a result of the intensification of the activities of law enforcement agencies, the qualitative component of detected malfeasance has increased. Thus, among the corrupt officials brought to justice, representatives of the senior level of state authorities and local self-government are increasingly being found. This is evidenced, for example, by the facts of the initiation of criminal cases or arrests for committing official crimes and receiving bribes in particularly large amounts of responsible officials and even heads of some federal executive authorities and their territorial divisions in a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, senior officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and authorities the prosecutor's office, one of the auditors of the Accounts Chamber, the mayors of Yakutsk, Volgograd and Tomsk, in the Arkhangelsk region - deputies of the City Council, in the Tver region - half of the deputies of the City Duma led by its chairman, in the Primorsky Territory - the deputy head of the administration of the city of Vladivostok and his accomplices, in the Nizhny Novgorod region - the head of the administration of one of the districts, in Orel - a group of city administration officials.

In the Republic of Bashkortostan, from 1994 to March 2, 2006, the unique and only Russian Law “On the Fight against Corruption” was in force.

However, due to the fact that currently the Law of the Republic of Bashkortostan “On the Fight against Corruption” is very outdated and, in addition, is in conflict with the federal laws of the Russian Federation, Decree No. 283-z “On the suspension of the Law of the Republic of Bashkortostan “On the Fight against corruption."

In total, according to the State Control of Bashkiria, since the beginning of this year it has carried out 736 inspections, including on behalf of the president and the State Assembly of the republic. Violations were found in the expenditure of funds in the amount of 427.5 million. rubles Compared to the same period last year, expenses and revenues not reflected in documents and hidden from taxes in the republic increased almost 2 times and amounted to 111.2 million rubles. Based on the results of inspections, funds and material assets worth 306 million rubles were returned to budgets of all levels and extra-budgetary funds (33 million more than in the same period last year).

538 officials were brought to justice for financial violations. Of these, 126 managers were suspended or demoted, and 357 were subject to disciplinary action. Based on the results of inspections by the control committee, 269 materials were sent to the law enforcement agencies of Bashkortostan, and criminal cases were initiated in relation to 61 of them. 37 officials were brought to administrative liability through the courts.

All this suggests that recently there has been a tendency to intensify the fight against corruption in the system of government.

Let's give an example. In June 2006, a sentence was passed under Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – abuse of official powers and Art. 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - receiving a bribe on an especially large scale (450,000 rubles) to one of the deputy heads of the administration of the city of Ufa, gr. Akhmetzyanov K.L.

Akhmetzyanov was brought to criminal liability for assistance in obtaining a loan from budget funds and contributed to the opening of a company store in the Leninsky district of Ufa.

The fight against corruption in the law enforcement system has also intensified.

By the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, a former high-ranking employee of the district department of internal affairs was convicted on March 24, 2007 under Part 3 of Article 30, Part 3 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for attempted theft of someone else's property by deception on a large scale using his official position) to 3 years of imprisonment to be served in a general regime correctional colony with deprivation of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies for a period of 3 years.

The former detective officer of the OBEP of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Ordzhonikidze district of Ufa was convicted under Part 1 of Article 30, Part 5 of Article 33, Part 2 of Article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for preparation of complicity in giving a bribe to an official for knowingly committing illegal actions) to 2 years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 2 years with deprivation of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies for a period of 3 years

It was established that at the beginning of July 2006, the deputy chief of the criminal police of the Ordzhonikidzevsky district police department of Ufa, born in 1979, was approached by a junior detective of the OBEP district police department, born in 1983, with a request to assist in terminating the criminal case against his friend, suspected of fraud.

Realizing the lack of opportunity to influence the course of the investigation, the policeman agreed to help the woman. He convinced the operative that she had the only way to avoid criminal liability - to bribe him and officials of the Internal Affairs Directorate and the prosecutor's office of the Ordzhonikidze district of Ufa, and offered to act as an intermediary in the transfer of money.

Having reached an agreement on the amount, on July 28, 2006, the detective met with the woman (acting as part of an operational experiment conducted by employees of the Internal Security Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic) in the building railway station, where she gave him part of the required amount (100,000 rubles) for the deputy head of the criminal police of the Ordzhonikidze district police department of Ufa, after which he was detained by employees of the Internal Security Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus.

The next day, a policeman, participating in the operational activities of the Internal Security Service in order to expose his accomplice, in the courtyard of one of the Ufa streets gave him 100,000 rubles received the day before. After receiving the money, the deputy chief of the district's criminal police was detained.

A criminal case on this fact was initiated and investigated by the department for especially important cases of the prosecutor's office of the republic.

In other regions of the Russian Federation, there has also been a tendency to strengthen the fight against corruption in the system of government. This suggests that the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin's task of fighting corruption is slowly but being accomplished.

Russia has ratified two international conventions aimed at combating corruption: the UN Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption.

The UN Convention is based on A complex approach, reflecting the complex socio-legal nature of corruption, the diversity and multi-level nature of the measures that are required to counter this evil. The Convention is designed as a comprehensive, comprehensive document; it contains sections on the prevention of corruption, asset recovery measures, and international cooperation. In essence, this Convention represents not only a legal, but also a conceptual basis for the fight against corruption. It is designed to stimulate the development of anti-corruption cooperation at the interstate level and has become an important step in expanding the international legal framework for combating corruption on a universal basis, including in matters of the return from abroad of funds of illegal origin obtained as a result of the corrupt activities of certain officials.

The Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention obliges member states to criminalize, in accordance with their national legislation, acts such as active and passive bribery of a wide range of their own government and foreign officials. Parties to the Convention undertake to take legislative and other measures that provide every reason to confiscate or otherwise seize instruments of criminal offenses and the proceeds thereof.

Based on the international legal acts signed by Russia, immediate and consistent adjustment of all Russian legislation is required.

Thus, combating corruption has now become the most important strategic task of the Russian state and its civil society.

To truly combat corruption, the introduction of the institution of conflict of interest will require the use of stricter language in legislation: on the need to unconditionally eliminate conflicts of interest; prohibition on performing official duties in a situation of conflict of interest; o providing annually and as necessary a declaration of conflict of interest.

In the modern period, in order to effectively prevent and suppress corruption in the state apparatus and overcome departmental disunity and duplication of functions, and thereby form effective state control in the public service system, it is necessary to create an independent federal anti-corruption service. It is necessary to include the internal security departments of various departments created in the modern period (Ministry of Internal Affairs, State Customs Committee, FSB, etc.). In organizational terms, this service should report directly to the President of Russia and coordinate the activities of various departments in preventing and suppressing corruption both in our country and abroad.

Thus, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The construction of a democratic legal federal state requires the creation of an adequate system of government bodies and a corresponding integral system of public service, ensuring the implementation of state functions, increasing the efficiency of the economy and the development of civil society.

In the Russian Federation, the constitutional foundations of the civil service have developed as the most important mechanism of public administration, fundamentally different from the previously existing administrative system management.

At the same time, the current state of the civil service of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the civil service) is characterized by the presence of a number of problems:

lack of an integrated public service system. Public service both at the federal level and at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is carried out as a service in a separate government body;

the presence of contradictions in the legislation on civil service;

insufficient efficiency of the activities of government bodies and their apparatuses;

decline in the prestige of the civil service and the authority of civil servants;

poor use of modern public administration technologies, including information technologies, that meet the objectives of implementing large-scale national programs and projects;

inconsistency of personnel policies in the civil service;

low efficiency of the mechanism for preventing and combating corruption, as well as legal and organizational measures to control the activities of public authorities and their apparatuses on the part of civil society;

discrepancy between the social and legal status of a civil servant with the degree of responsibility assigned to him and the level of legislative restrictions existing in the civil service;

lack of proper regulation of the activities of public authorities, their apparatus and civil servants, which contributes to the bureaucratization of relations between public authorities, structural units of the apparatus of a public authority, as well as between public authorities, citizens of the Russian Federation and structures of civil society;

informational secrecy of the activities of public authorities;

undeveloped mechanisms for the relationship between the public service and the municipal service.

The administrative apparatus is not only a collection of institutions and bodies, but also a collection of many people working in them. From this point of view, the latter represents a large social group (stratum) occupying a specific position in society. Its characteristic feature is high level organization: in addition to social connections, employees of the apparatus are connected by many organizational relationships, enshrined in instructions, regulations, etc.

Under certain conditions, deformation of the entire system of social interests is possible. The apparatus created to serve the authorities is losing its purely official role, concentrates power in his hands. The wider the powers of the governing body, the greater its operational independence, the more power in its hands. In the absence of effective control on the part of society, this power begins to be used in the interests of the apparatus itself.

It is in this sequence that the factors (in order of their significance) are lined up that most determine negative assessments by Russians of various institutions of power and bureaucracy. Let us turn to the data of sociological research.

1. “Isolation from the people” - in fact, the refusal of state structures to care about the basic social needs of people, the authorities’ reliance not on broad social strata, but on their own bureaucracy, security forces and political demagoguery. This is why the management apparatus loses control over the situation. 81% of respondents see this as the main reason for their negative attitude towards the modern state bureaucracy and the country's top leadership. This opinion is based on the following beliefs of the respondents:

The apparatus does not know the true needs of the population, its difficulties; they themselves live well, are engaged in paperwork and meetings (59%);

Officials enjoy benefits and privileges, although at one time they themselves opposed them (67%);

Leaders are not busy with government affairs, but with the struggle to maintain power and themselves in this power (56%);

None of the “governors” consult with the people (61%). Most often such judgments are made by workers, pensioners, and peasants. Less often - humanitarian intelligentsia, scientists; much less often are entrepreneurs and young people under the age of 25.

2. “The discrepancy between word and deed,” the “erosion” in society in general and in management structures in particular of such moral norms as decency, honesty, responsibility, and diligence. This reason for their negative assessment of managers at various levels was named by 59% of respondents. The most frequently cited judgments were:

Having come to power, many do the exact opposite of what they talked about and what they called for before (38%);

Officials often hide the truth or simply lie (47%);

The authorities do not fulfill the promises they make to the people (56%).

3. Bribery and corruption constantly plague “offices” and “administrations”; personal gain is often visible behind loud statements and assessments. This opinion is firmly established among different social strata of the population. Hence the origins of the fact that in society itself there has been a rapidly developing process of declining respect for the law, established orders, an increasing orientation towards force and even violence. 42% of respondents do not see anything reprehensible in this or that violation of laws and regulations. From 18 to 21% of young people surveyed in different social groups admitted the possibility of various types of violence in public life, including the use of weapons to achieve their goals.

Bureaucracy is not just a monopolization of the exercise of power by the apparatus, but, as it were, a second power that disintegrates a unified system of power. More specifically, bureaucracy is an excessive formalization of management, used to actually (as much as possible) push the people and their representatives away from power, to ensure their own interests to the detriment of the interests of society.

Bureaucracy has its own national-state specifics, determined, first of all, by the socio-economic system, the level of development of democratic traditions, culture, people's education, and the moral maturity of society.

The Achilles heel of the civil service is the low efficiency of the executive branch, the lack of proper order in the activities of the apparatus, chaos and indiscipline, and excessive material costs for each government decision.

The civil service inevitably finds itself “introduced” into the sphere political relations and has a fairly large power potential. The noted trends in the activities of the state bureaucracy characterize its top and some middle representatives as relatively independent subjects of political power. This part of the unelected ruling political elite invariably increases its role in the modern state, exerting an ever-increasing influence on the process of developing, adopting and implementing political decisions. And although the left traditionally accuses the bureaucracy of faithfully serving the interests of the ruling class, and the right declares its sympathies with the left as consistent supporters of large-scale government interventionism and the creation of new jobs for officials, both call the civil service “the fourth branch of government.” authorities". The “inclusion” of civil servants in the sphere of political management is an inevitable product of the modern system of government and administration. Therefore, the importance of democratic control over the activities of the bureaucracy is increasing.

Of course, in the current management apparatus there are many honest workers doing useful work. But still, this apparatus is bureaucratic, as it has adopted a special management style. The most common features of the bureaucratic work style are well known. This is a commitment to outdated methods and techniques of work; unwillingness to thoroughly know the matter and bear responsibility for it; red tape; lack of initiative, focus on instructions “from above”; petty supervision of subordinates, constant unnecessary, and sometimes harmful, interference in their current affairs; commitment to paperwork, the desire to reinsure your activities with references and approvals. All this leads to a sharp drop in the efficiency of the public administration system.

From the theoretical and methodological problems of studying bureaucracy, let us move on to the analysis real practice functioning of the institution of public service in the system of power relations of modern Russia at the federal and regional levels.

The period of modernization, which has been going on in Russia for more than ten years, according to a number of scientists, is especially favorable for the politicization of the state bureaucracy. So, T.A. Podshibyakina rightly notes that the first stage in the development of the state in countries of an inorganic type of modernization is most often bureaucratic, because it is the state bureaucracy that takes into its own hands the implementation of reforms (becomes the subject of modernization) if there is not a sufficient social basis for democratic transformations, as well as with political weakness power (or, in other words, a “deficit of political leadership”).

The bureaucracy sets goals for change (which is usually the job of politicians) on the basis of rational choice, performing a political function. At the same time, a contradiction arises between the democratic goals of modernization and the bureaucratic methods of its implementation, since the bureaucracy uses administration methods in politics. If a politician is vested with authority and is responsible to voters, then an official who performs political functions unusual for him remains part of a highly organized, almost self-sufficient management system with his own code of ethics.

Since politicians determine only the general guidelines for reform, the responsibility of the bureaucracy becomes the choice of medium-level goals and means of achieving them. Bureaucratic goal setting has the advantage that goals are correlated with opportunities and methods for their implementation, since it is the executive vertical that is responsible for their implementation, and this gives them a real character, unlike many political goals. This circumstance can also become a guarantee of social efficiency, provided that decisions taken out of the control of society at the adoption stage are not influenced by the goals of the organization. However, if democratic control over the activities of the bureaucracy is weak, then the instrumental functions of the administrative apparatus are transformed into goal-setting ones, and it turns into a self-sufficient force in society.

The state bureaucracy in the conditions of modernization, due to its active role and position in the implementation of reforms, inevitably forms and functions as a political and administrative institution. At the same time, the politicization of the state bureaucracy appears as a desire for the state apparatus to monopolize power in favorable political conditions. The politicization of bureaucracy is manifested not only in the combination of public service and participation in the activities of political organizations, the use of official position in the interests of political parties, but also in the ability to independently generate political decisions based on the interests of the bureaucratic organization, and in the interference of the executive branch in the affairs of political parties and movements , establishing control over them, which contributes to the counter-process of bureaucratization of parties and political movements due to the special way they are formed under political leaders.

The essence of the political function of the state apparatus in the institutional aspect lies in the formation of political relations in society, i.e. relations regarding state power.

The reason for the politicization of the bureaucracy lies not only in the political weakness of politicians, but also in the apoliticality of social groups. In Russia, this is explained by the presence of historical and sociocultural prerequisites, the habit of obeying the authorities, the willingness to endure, the incompleteness of the formation of appropriate democratic institutions, and social apathy caused by the negative consequences of the reforms themselves.

The politicization of the activities of the state bureaucracy, although it is necessary at a certain stage of the development of reforms, has features that do not contribute to the effectiveness of its results. The specifics of policy implementation by bureaucratic structures are determined by anonymity and hidden nature, which opens up space for many negative phenomena based on personal connections and contacts of the political, bureaucratic and business elites.

The formation of the Russian political and managerial elite thus proceeded within the framework of the so-called “administrative nomenklatura model,” the essence of which is that power was gradually concentrated in the hands of politicians and senior officials, a significant part of whom came from the former elite strata, although and second echelon.

It is noteworthy that over the years of reforms, the executive apparatus of power has grown most of all. The total number of civil servants and other employees of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, other government bodies formed in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as state bodies), as well as municipal employees and other employees of local government bodies at the beginning 2006 amounted to 1053.1 thousand people, including the established number of civil servants and other employees of federal executive authorities - 315.1 thousand people.

During the period from 1992 to 2002, the number of civil servants and other workers in these bodies increased by 1.8 times, mainly at the regional level. This growth is due to the formation, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, of state bodies ensuring the development of a market economy, including tax, financial, employment, migration and others, as well as local government bodies.

IN total number civil servants and other employees of government bodies, as well as municipal employees and other employees of local government bodies, civil servants and other employees of executive authorities, as well as municipal employees and other employees of local government bodies accounted for 89 percent (925.1 thousand people), of which 30 percent were employed in federal executive bodies, including 28 percent in territorial bodies of federal executive bodies

The established number of federal civil servants in the central apparatus of federal executive bodies was 24.9 thousand people, and their territorial bodies - 290.2 thousand people.

153.3 thousand people held government positions in government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and 283.7 thousand people held municipal positions in local government bodies.

Since 1998, there has been a slight decrease in the number of civil servants of federal executive bodies. In 2006, the number of civil servants in federal executive bodies decreased by 4.9 percent compared to 1998. At the same time, there is an increase in the number of civil servants of state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal employees of local government bodies.

The structure of positions of many government bodies today allows the ratio of managers and executors at the level of 1.1 - 1.8., i.e. There are less than two performers per manager.

The above figures speak of the bureaucratization of management, of the bureaucratic apparatus reproducing itself. The apparatus solves reform problems using old methods, creating new structures for unresolved problems.

The increase in the size of the bureaucracy indicates that, firstly, there is no well-thought-out state personnel policy; secondly, the efficiency of the organization and functioning of the bureaucracy leaves much to be desired and, thirdly, the very low competitiveness of the state as an employer, when instead of one “effective” employee, three to five “ineffective” ones are hired.

In addition to the “internal” growth of bureaucracy, the interference of the state apparatus in the sphere of civil society is increasing, which pushes the process of bureaucratization of politics. The result of bureaucratic institutionalization was administrative influence on the formation of the party system in Russia, along with the democratic initiation of party building.

Thus, the functioning of the Russian bureaucracy represents the most typical example of how organized detachments of senior officials go beyond the scope of purely managerial activities and turn into a real political force with their own corporate interests. Despite global changes in the economic and social spheres, the administrative apparatus has managed to maintain its strategic positions and continues to dictate its rules, being, in fact, the subject of modernization in modern Russia.

The uncontrolled rule of the Russian bureaucracy to the detriment of the interests of the development of civil society and the goals of a democratic state puts on the agenda the issue of urgent reform of the public service system, taking into account world experience, historical, cultural and other characteristics of Russia.

Since bureaucracy is based on economic, organizational, political-ideological, sociocultural roots, changes in economic, organizational, social, political and other conditions that contribute to the bureaucracy of management processes are necessary. The success of the fight against bureaucracy in Russia is determined by which path of socio-economic and political development the country will take, how quickly and on what scale the ideas of democracy, freedom and social justice will be realized, and how the principles of democratic self-government will be implemented.

The more authoritarian the political regime, the greater the scale and influence of bureaucracy. Democratization of the management system will deprive bureaucracy of a favorable environment, those “niches” in which it now multiplies and prospers. At the same time, the fight against bureaucracy should be considered in the broad context of democratic renewal; it is unacceptable to reduce it to denouncing the bureaucratic management style, to anti-bureaucratic campaigns and mechanical reorganizations of the management apparatus.

Freeing themselves from the mistakes and excesses of the previous system, people often fall into the other extreme - permissiveness, which knows no boundaries. Democracy is not permissiveness, but an order based on self-control of society, civic maturity and high culture of people, especially those employed in the apparatus of government bodies.

A system of social opposition to the bureaucracy and social control over the activities of the apparatus as a whole can and should contribute to the successful fight against bureaucracy. However, social opposition should in no case be interpreted as something anti-apparatus. Without an apparatus there is not and cannot be a single governing body; without it there is anarchy and chaos. But control cannot be trusted to just one device. It is necessary to combine democratic public administration with effective mechanisms of social self-regulation. Experience (both positive and negative) shows that increasing the efficiency of public administration is practically impossible if it is not complemented and balanced by “reasonable” mechanisms of social self-regulation that stimulate civic activity and public control. The civil society emerging in our country with a developed system of self-regulation is intended to become such a system of social opposition to state power.

In the field of public administration there are people engaged in a complex, specific type of mental work - managerial work. Its features also entail special requirements for management personnel, in particular, competence (knowledge of the profession), efficiency (ability to conduct business), a combination of scientific and administrative approaches, organization, high integrity and responsibility.

As shown by an expert survey conducted in March - April 2006 (160 employees of the Moscow region administration were surveyed), the work of a civil servant (official), which is one of the exclusively responsible types of professional activity, places diverse demands on him and presupposes the presence of certain qualities. Among them: competence (90.8%); independence in solving assigned tasks (48.4%); initiative (32.8%). In addition, general erudition was named; analytical and systematic thinking; state approach to business; decency; the ability to carry out management activities through the prism of people’s interests.

According to the majority of respondents, current civil servants are largely characterized by a bureaucratic work style. 27% of respondents note that officials act in an improvisational style, which is characteristic of those who do not have serious professional training and who are accustomed to acting under the influence of emotions, without taking into account possible consequences making decisions for teams and society as a whole.

The lack of professionalism of officials is generated, firstly, by the lack of scientific system work with personnel at all levels of the state body, the dictates of appointment; secondly, the largely bureaucratic approach to personnel that remains today; thirdly, by the fact that, until recently, competence, professionalism, and good knowledge in the field of economics, law, sociology, personnel management and cultural studies have been largely unclaimed. The transitional society, with its ineffective systems for protecting the apparatus from the unworthy, has not yet made a categorical order for professionals. Moreover, on the wave of democratization, many outsiders of the past, ambitious phrase-mongers, trying to use power to grab a bigger piece for themselves, got into the apparatus. The country needs a new generation of professional managers of a modern formation, and taking into account the entire structure of positions, both in their levels and in the content of activities. At the same time, we are talking about the differentiation of managerial workers not only according to positions held at different levels in different levels of the apparatus, but primarily according to their business and personal qualities, by what properties of their soul they put into their work, what they are guided by in life.

Increasing the efficiency of the apparatus can be achieved through the daily implementation of scientific organization, mechanization and automation of managerial work, and the creation of an atmosphere in teams where everyone is fighting for the “highest quality.” In this case, we will highlight three directions. The first is the use of computer technology and automated control systems. The second is the use of office equipment to collect, process, compile, copy, reproduce, store, search and forward documents. Third, the creation of psychological support services for management. The greatest effect is achieved by combining these directions.

Bureaucracy cannot but manifest itself in a developed management system, in which the subject and object of management are to one degree or another separated from each other, where the subject of management specializes and professionalizes. Every civil servant is, to one degree or another, a bureaucrat. But it does not at all follow from this that in order to destroy bureaucracy it is necessary to destroy the civil service, the professional apparatus of power or management. This idea is wrong and unproductive. The output lies in a different search plane. In this regard, it is necessary to highlight the problems of bureaucracy and bureaucracy in a special section of management theory for a more in-depth analysis.

Reforming the civil service system of the Russian Federation as a priority direction of state policy in the field of state construction is the most important part of administrative reform, is carried out within its framework and is carried out in close connection with military reform, reform of the judicial system and other reforms. Proposals for reforming the civil service system of the Russian Federation are aimed at:

bringing the civil service into line with established public relations, new economic conditions, the creation of an integrated public service system;

delimitation of functions and powers of state bodies, their divisions, as well as their rationalization;

the formation of different types of government bodies based on the functions they perform, using different methods of planning, financing and performance evaluation;

development of effective mechanisms for personnel policy in the public service;

creation of a normative legal framework for regulating the civil service of the Russian Federation.

Reform of the civil service system should be carried out in the following areas:

1. Streamlining the functions and structures of government bodies, forming regulations for the activities of government bodies, their divisions and employees; development of standard regulations on federal executive authorities and their structural divisions, optimization of the network of institutions and enterprises subordinate to state authorities.

For example, it is possible to transition to a three-level system of federal authorities (the Russian Government apparatus - ministry - service / agency / supervision), which will clearly define the areas of responsibility of executive authorities and optimize their composition and functioning mechanisms.

Moreover, each type of government body has its own specific functions: the ministry is engaged in developing public policy and coordinating the activities of government agencies, services and supervisions operating in the relevant field (examples of ministries include the ministries of finance, justice, and defense); services are bodies that provide services related to the implementation of the powers of the state and financed exclusively from the budget or statutory mandatory payments of business entities and the population (bailiff service, tax service, customs service); supervision – bodies that implement the control functions of the state in relation to business entities and the population; agencies - bodies that provide public services both at the expense of budgetary funds and on a paid basis (examples of agencies include the Aerospace Agency, the Statistical Agency).

2. Organizational and economic mechanisms for the functioning of the public service (planning, organization and evaluation of activities, financing and management of budgetary funds).

3. Status of employees of government bodies, including civil servants, their incentives (salary and “social package”), personnel policy (selection and promotion of personnel), code of ethics for civil servants.

4. Introduction of modern information technologies into the activities of the state apparatus, transition to predominantly electronic document management, simplification of approval procedures.

5. Logistical support for the activities of federal executive authorities; working conditions for civil servants.

6. Training, retraining, advanced training of personnel for public administration.

The measures envisaged are designed to increase the efficiency of the civil service of the Russian Federation in the interests of the development of civil society and the state, strengthen citizens' trust in the apparatus of public authorities, ensure transparency of the civil service, increase its authority and improve the social security of civil servants. It is proposed to create an integral system of civil service of the Russian Federation by levels and types based on the unity of principles, requirements, legislative restrictions, payment and basic social guarantees of civil servants in the federal public service, as well as in the state civil service of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, ensuring equal conditions for public service. It is envisaged to strengthen the relationship between state and municipal services.

State reform should ensure the creation of effective mechanisms:

preventing, identifying and eliminating circumstances conducive to corruption and abuse in the public service;

controllability and openness of the public service system to civil society, including the use of modern information technologies in the activities of government bodies and civil servants;

de-bureaucratization of relations between government bodies, civil servants and citizens, and civil society structures.

In conclusion of this paragraph, based on the analysis of measures to improve the system of political and administrative management, the author of the final qualifying work considers it necessary to present some proposals and recommendations for reforming and increasing the efficiency of the Russian civil service:

building a system of bodies for managing the civil service of the Russian Federation (“personnel vertical”); creation of a single management center (special body) directly responsible for increasing its efficiency, implementing relevant organizational measures and implementing regulatory legal acts; assigning broad powers to the management structure to monitor the progress of administrative reform;

organizing a media campaign to explain the administrative reform (goal, objectives, methods, sources of funding, results obtained, etc.);

improving the regulatory framework of the civil service; development and adoption in the future of the Civil Service Code, designed to systematize and codify the civil service legal body;

reliance on human resources - pay special attention to the promotion of innovative ideas among civil servants: holding seminars, retraining, etc., as well as supporting their creative initiatives to improve the quality of service to the population, improve the organization of work of departments, optimize service relations and motivation;

the introduction of a permitting procedure for a civil servant to transfer to work in commercial structures related to his previous activities within 3 years after his dismissal from public service;

creation of legal and organizational guarantees of “transparency” of the civil service for society, for access of citizens and public organizations to information and unclassified materials related to their rights and legitimate interests; optimization of direct and feedback channels between authorities and the population; creation of an effective mechanism for protecting individual rights and suppressing bureaucratic arbitrariness;

implementation in practice of a system of open competitions for vacant civil service positions; conducting certification of all “career” employees based on developed criteria;

more active introduction of new information technologies into the work of the state apparatus;

strengthening the public service research infrastructure; radical improvement of the system of training and retraining of management personnel;

creation of a special federal body to combat corruption; introduction of a set of laws providing for anti-corruption measures;

taking urgent financial and economic measures and improving the material and technical support of the civil service; increasing the salaries of officials to levels that ensure an influx of qualified personnel; the maximum possible translation of indirect measures of material reward into direct ones;

creation of a service of senior managers, which will allow selecting the most talented and competent specialists who are focused not on their career, but on the work being performed;

introduction of an extensive, “echeloned” system of public control over the functioning of the civil service: parliamentary, financial, administrative, judicial (with specialized administrative justice), political, public (for example, through the ombudsman service, the media, etc.);

creation of an optimal structure of state governing bodies and their apparatuses; elimination of excessive parallelism and duplication in public administration; optimization of the number of civil servants;

creation of a data bank for personnel support of the civil service at all levels of government;

introduction of uniform principles for the job growth of civil servants at the federal and regional levels, including a mechanism for the effective use of personnel reserves and personnel rotation in a unified public service system;

development of merits system principles, i.e. evaluation and promotion of employees based on their merits and professional qualities;

reduction of those administrative and distribution functions of the state apparatus that are redundant;

creation and legalization of new models of interaction between the civil service and the commercial sector, political parties, trade unions, and the media;

development and implementation of new regulations, standards, procedures and algorithms for management activities; improvement, development and implementation of new personnel technologies;

limiting the role of departmental rulemaking;

maintaining constant monitoring of the efficiency of the civil service; strengthening the personnel services of government bodies and creating analytical units in them;

implementation in practice of the principle of unity of the civil service; development of a unified Register of government positions in the federal and regional (subjects of the Federation) civil service;

strict supervision of compliance with the principles of depoliticization and departitionization of the civil service;

improving election legislation in order to minimize the use of administrative resources;

development of a federal program for training the population in the basics of political and public administration in Russia and its implementation in educational institutions.

The ultimate goal of the civil service reform is to ensure clear, efficient and economical operation of the state apparatus, the orientation of the civil service to respect the legal rights and freedoms of citizens and all subjects of law, to prevent the possibility of using the apparatus as a means of subordinating it to party or group influences and as a source of misappropriation of public wealth . In Russia, a corps of civil servants must be formed that operates on a professional basis, stable, small in number, manageable, politically neutral and law-abiding.

Thus, based on studying the topic of the final qualifying work, it seems possible to draw the following conclusions:

One of the first scientists who took up the problem of bureaucracy, who laid the foundation for the development of the theory of bureaucracy, was G.V.F. Hegel. It was Hegel who was one of the first to begin developing the institution of public administration and gave a detailed analysis of bureaucracy, its essence, structures and functions. The state bureaucracy is characterized by Hegel as the main ruling component of society, where state consciousness, education and professionalism are concentrated.

Following Hegel, such scientists and thinkers as A. Tocqueville, J.S. took up the problems of bureaucracy. Mill et al.

K. Marx played a significant role in the development of the theory of bureaucracy, despite the fact that the problem of bureaucracy was not central and did not receive systematic consideration in the works of K. Marx. The specificity of Marx's idea is that he gave a more specific and more sociological turn to the political version of analysis. The main goal of bureaucracy in Marx is the desire to reduce the severity of conflict in society.

However, the first scientist to give the concept of bureaucracy and systematize the analysis of state bureaucracy was M. Weber. The starting point for the analysis of bureaucracy for M. Weber is the fact of the growth and complexity of organizations in modern society. He views bureaucracy as the basis of modern decision-making theory. The main characteristic of bureaucracy for him was the rationality of behavior and action, due both to its special position in the hierarchy of society and to its strict connection with the rules of functioning of any complex organization.

Development of the theory of bureaucracy in the 20th century. Refers to the period after the First World War. The so-called “classical schools”, “schools of human relations”, etc. appeared.

One of the most important thinkers who played a huge role in the development of the theory of bureaucracy in the 20th century. M. Crozier appeared. The main topic of his research is the study of the role of the state in the process of reforming society.

The analysis of the main theoretical approaches to the study of the problems of bureaucracy shows that representatives of different schools are primarily divided by an emphasis on either the formal-structural or human aspects of the administrative organization; Moreover, each of the theories reveals in the object of study the inherent elements and processes that exist as a contradictory, complementary unity, which allows these theories to coexist, complement or compete with each other, thereby cultivating a field of general scientific search, organically including the achievements of various scientific schools .

In Russia, bureaucracy as a permanent phenomenon arose with the formation of the civil service. The emergence of a professional civil service is associated with the name of Peter I, namely with his government reforms. The introduction of the “Table of Ranks” determined the foundations of the civil service in Russia. The “Table of Ranks” was in effect for two centuries and regulated the civil service, and also legitimized the position of Russian officials.

Currently, the Federal Law “On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation” is in force in Russia, regulating legal, organizational, and personnel issues related to the civil service in the Russian Federation.

We can say that at present the stage of civil service reform has not yet passed. One of the main stages of reform was the emergence and enforcement of the Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”. The state civil service is one of the types of public service. In Russia, the Federal Program for Reforming the Civil Service has been in effect since 2003. At the stage of reforming the civil service, the priority directions of the reform of the civil service of the Russian Federation must be fully implemented.

In modern Russia, a huge problem in reforming the civil service is the problem of corruption of officials at various levels. Despite the emerging trend in the fight against corrupt officials, their number is not decreasing. Corruption has penetrated into all spheres of government. To combat corruption in Russia, it is necessary at the legislative level (in Russia there is no Law “On the Fight against Corruption”), it is necessary to create an independent federal service to combat corruption (currently in Russia there is a Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Fight against Corruption), involve the general public, the media, etc. in the fight against corruption.

The bureaucracy of civil servants is a huge problem in the development of Russia as a democratic state. The state bureaucracy functions as a political-administrative institution. The bureaucracy of officials manifests itself in various ways. This includes the combination of public service and participation in the activities of political organizations, the use of official position in the interests of political parties, the ability to independently generate political decisions based on the interests of a bureaucratic organization, the intervention of the executive branch in the affairs of political parties and movements, the establishment of control over them, and the arbitrariness of officials. No matter how bureaucracy manifests itself, it primarily harms the interests of civil society.

Overcoming bureaucracy and bureaucracy in the system of government bodies primarily depends on reforming the civil service system. It is necessary to create social control over the activities of the state apparatus as a whole. It is necessary to improve the professionalism of civil servants. Reforming the civil service system will ensure

preventing, identifying and eliminating circumstances conducive to corruption and abuse in the public service;

controllability and openness of the public service system to civil society, including the use of modern information technologies in the activities of government bodies and civil servants;

de-bureaucratization of relations between government bodies, civil servants and citizens, and civil society structures.

Regulatory acts

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 12, 1993 // Russian newspaper. – 1993. - No. 12 (4). – December 25.

2. Federal Law of July 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ “On the Public Service System”. – M.: Legal literature, 2003.

3. Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”. – M.: Infra, 2004.

4. Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated December 24, 1993. – Ufa: Kitap, 1994.

5. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2002 No. 1336 “On the federal program “Reforming the civil service of the Russian Federation (2003-2005)” // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2002, November 23

6. Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus “On approval of the program to combat crime in the Republic of Bashkortostan.” 2004-2006. Legal framework Consultant Plus. Regional legislation.

7. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2005 No. 1574 “On the register of positions in the federal state civil service.” – M.: Infra, 2006.

8. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1437 “On the extension of the implementation of the Federal program “Reform of the civil service of the Russian Federation (2003-2005) for 2006-2007.”

9. Federal program “Reform of the civil service 2003-2005”, approved by the President of the Russian Federation on November 19, 2002.

10. Decree of May 15, 1997 “On the provision of information on income and property by persons holding government positions in the Russian Federation, and by persons holding government positions in the civil service and positions in local government bodies”

11. Decree of June 6, 1996 “On measures to strengthen discipline in the public service system”

12. Decree of April 8, 1997 “On priority measures to prevent corruption and reduce budget expenditures when organizing the purchase of products for state needs”

14. Law of the Republic of Bashkortostan

Special literature

1. Atamanchuk G.V. Methodological prerequisites for the concept of public service of the Russian Federation // Public service of the Russian Federation: first steps and prospects. – M.: Publishing house RAGS, 2002.

2. Blyumkin V.A. Bureaucracy: social and moral aspects. M.: Infra, 2000.

3. Borisov V.K. Democratization of society and overcoming bureaucracy (socio-political aspect). M.: Prospekt, 2002.

4. Bruder V. Bureaucracy // Polis. - 1999. No. 5. - P. 41-48.

5. Bystrenko V.I. History of public administration and self-government in Russia: Tutorial. - M.: INFRA-M, 2005.

6. Vyacheslav Smolkov Bureaucracy and bureaucracy: how to reduce the disease to a minimum? // Public service. – 2005. - No. 5. – P. 21-29.

7. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. Max Weber's problems with bureaucracy. // Questions of philosophy. - 2003. - No. 3. – P. 36-44.

8. Hegel G.V. Philosophy of law. M.: New World, 1990.

9. Barabashev A.G. Public service in the Russian Federation: current state, problems and prospects. (Analytical review of the directions and content of civil service reform in the Russian Federation) // State Service. – 2005. - No. 4. – P. 22-30.

10. Citizen V.D. Public service as a professional activity. - Voronezh: Kvadrat, 2003.

11. Gudkov A., Levada Yu., Lsainson F., Sedov L. Bureaucracy and bureaucracy: the need for clarification // State and Law. – 2004. - No. 1. – P. 42-52.

12. Zaslavskaya T.I. Social structure of modern Russian society // Social sciences and modernity. 2005 - No. 2. – P. 19-26.

13. Kirpichnikov A.I. Bribe and corruption in Russia. St. Petersburg: Neva, 2006.

14. Kozbanenko V.A. Public service in the public administration system // Public administration: fundamentals of theory and organization. -2000. - No. 11. – P. 60-70.

15. Komarovsky V.S. Political factors in reforming the public service // Public service: first steps and prospects. - M.: Publishing house RAGS, 2005.

16. Crozier M. Organizational changes in the public administration system. – M.: RAGS, 2003.

17. Kupryashin G.L. Bureaucracy and bureaucracy in administrative-state institutions // Public administration: fundamentals of theory and organization. - M.: Legal literature, 2005.

18. Kurashvili B.P. The fight against bureaucracy. - M.: Yurist, 2005.

19. Lazarev B.M. Public service. - M.: Luch, 2000.

20. Levinson A.G. The term “bureaucracy” in Russian contexts // Questions of Philosophy. 2004. - No. 7. - P. 24 -28.

21. Lobanov V. Reforming the state apparatus: world practice and Russian problems // Organization of public service. – 2004. - No. 11. – P. 53-62.

22. Lukyanenko V.I. Control in the public service system: Educational literature. -M.: Publishing house RAGS, 2005.

23. Luneev V.V. Political and legal problems of corruption // Corruption in government bodies: nature, countermeasures, international cooperation. N. Novgorod.: Knowledge, 2001

24. Magomedov K.O. State service and problems of improving management in the conditions of the formation of civil society in Russia // State Service of Russia. – 2006. - No. 1. – P. 15 – 22.

25. Makarenko V.P. M. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy and bourgeois concepts of organization and management // Questions of philosophy. – 2005. - No. 6. – P. 17-26.

26. Maltsev V.A. A modern type of civil servant. - M.:: Publishing house RAGS, 2001.

27. Marx K. Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte // Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 8.

28. Marx K. Towards a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law. //Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 1. P. 270.

29. Maslovsky M.V. Political sociology of bureaucracy. - M.: Infra, 1999.

30. Morozova E.G. Administrative reforms of the late 20th century: what foreign experience teaches us // Scientific reports. Vol. 1. – M.: Publishing house RAGS, 1999. P. 94-96

31. Nestik T.A. Bureaucracy in foreign research // Social sciences and modernity. - 1999. - No. 2. - P. 52-59.

32. Nozdrachev A.F. Public service. – M.: Statute, 2003.

33. Obolonsky A.V. Bureaucracy and bureaucracy // State and law. - 2004. - No. 12. - P.88 – 96.

34. Obolonsky A.V. In the service of the sovereign: on the history of Russian bureaucracy // Social sciences and modernity. – 2002. - No. 3. – P. 35-43.

35. Obolonsky A.V. Reform of the Russian civil service: concept and strategy // Social sciences and modernity. – 2005. - No. 3. P. 5 – 10.

36. Ozhiganov E.N. The political theory of Max Weber. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1996.

37. Orekhov A.M. Bureaucracy: from traditional to information society // Socio-political journal. 2003. - No. 6. - P. 108 – 113.

38. Okhotsky E.V., Smolkov V.G. Problems of bureaucracy and overcoming bureaucracy in the public service // Public service: theory and organization. – 2005. - No. 10. – 10-32.

39. Pataeni E.O. Towards the analysis of complex forms of mediation of individual activity (On the example of the mediating function of the bureaucratic management system) // Activity approach in psychology: problems and prospects. M.: Nauka, 1993.

40. Pinchot K., Pinchot E. From a bureaucratic organization to a self-regulating organization // Public Service. Problems of reform. Foreign experience. – 1997. - No. 8. – P. 12-19.

41. Pushkar G.V. State bureaucracy as an object of research // Social sciences and modernity. - 2003. - No. 5. – P. 17-26.

42. Solovyov A. Ethics of bureaucracy: post-Soviet siadrome // Social Sciences and Modernity - 2000. - No. 4. – pp. 69-76

43. Starilov Yu.N. Civil service in the Russian Federation: problems of reform // Problems of state power. – 2005. - No. 4. – P. 11-17.

44. Theory of state and law. Textbook – 3rd ed. / Ed. M.N. Marchenko. – M.: MIRROR, 2003.

45. Tomilichentseva L.D. Moral and psychological aspects of bureaucracy // Spirituality: traditions and problems. Ufa: Kitap, 1998.

46. Khudokormov A.G. Economic roots of bureaucracy. M.: Prosvet, 2001.

47. Sharov A.V. Legal and organizational problems of regulation of public service. – M.: Statute, 2006.

48. Shvarts G. Origins of modern modernization of public service // Public Service. Problems of reform. Foreign experience. – 2004. - No. 12. – P. 66-69.

Activities of the “classical bureaucracy”	Activities of the “political bureaucracy”
Orientation towards the “common good”, “public interests”, etc.	Targeting different political groups, interests and goals
The belief that problems should be solved on a purely business basis is politically neutral	The belief that problems should be resolved through political negotiations through compromise
Pluralistic political support (parliament, parties, interest groups, etc.) is in principle seen as unnecessary and even dangerous	A pluralistic band of security is recognized as necessary for the implementation of political and state decisions
Participation of the masses in politics and governance is rejected	In principle, the political masses are approved
Poor interaction between bureaucrats and politicians	Relatively intense interaction between bureaucrats and politicians
Elite solidarity (the belief that government officials should represent the elite morally and intellectually)	Little Elite Solidarity
Orientation towards procedural methods of activity	Focus on programmatic and problem-based methods of activity (participation in the development and evaluation of government programs, decision-making)

Obolonsky A.V. Bureaucracy and bureaucracy // State and law. - 2004. - No. 12. - P.88.

Hegel G.V. Philosophy of law. M.: New World, 1990, p. 196.

Bruder V. Bureaucracy // Polis. - 1999. No. 5. - P. 42.

Nozdrachev A.F. Public service. – M.: Statute, 2003. – P. 22..

Sharov A.V. Legal and organizational problems of regulation of public service. – M.: Statute, 2006. – P. 39.

Federal Law of July 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ “On the Public Service System”. – M.: Legal literature, 2003. - Art. 3.

Barabashev A.G. Public service in the Russian Federation: current state, problems and prospects. (Analytical review of the directions and content of civil service reform in the Russian Federation) // State Service. – 2005. - No. 4. – P. 23.

Citizen V.D. Public service as a professional activity. - Voronezh: Kvadrat, 2003. – P. 36.

The political basis of the despotic monarchy was the bureaucratic administrative apparatus. The social basis of the despotic monarchy was the layer of bureaucracy, the bureaucracy, whose well-being was closely connected with the monarchy. It is the serving nobility, the bureaucracy, that is the ruling class in a despotic monarchy. The absolute, legally unlimited power of the ruler needs officials. As a system of transferable powers, bureaucracy is necessary in every state and is necessary and useful until it usurps or appropriates the supreme power of the monarch. The bureaucracy has its own interests, distinct from the common good. The monarch can become a toy in her hands, which ultimately leads to the death of the state.

Bureaucracy is hierarchical ladder persons and institutions, which serves to transmit the influence of the monarch in all areas of government. Bureaucracy is the dominance of a layer of professional officials who are hierarchically dependent on each other. The bureaucratic apparatus is a system of professional officials subordinate to the monarch, who are appointed from above, and the appointment occurs on the principle of personal devotion to the monarch, professionalism (knowledge of the matter), and not by origin. Of course, the provision of a position is possible by the right of kinship, by the recommendation and patronage of influential persons, by the right of nobility. Officials are divided into ranks (ranks) and receive payment for the performance of positions in accordance with their rank. Subordinate officials report to their superiors.

The most important pillar of the monarch's power were the security forces - the squad (army) and the police, capable of supporting the orders of the authorities with physical force. A well-armed squad with excellent weapon handling served as a sufficient threat against the divided mass of the population. The despotic monarchy relied not so much on the militia of the free, but on a standing army, in which the soldiers received plots of land from the king for their service.

Features of the bureaucratic apparatus of management in the Chinese monarchy

The most powerful, complex, extensive bureaucratic management apparatus was created in the Chinese Empire from the 3rd century. BC. It had purely Chinese methods for selecting officials. These included the method of nominating capable officials, for whom those officials who recommended them were responsible. This meant that in case of poor performance or violation of an order, not only the offending official was responsible, but also the superior who at one time recommended the culprit for the position. The Chinese were the first to use a system of competitive examinations, in which the examinee demonstrates his knowledge and abilities by answering, without books or manuals, from memory, questions unknown in advance (only the range of questions is known in advance) orally or in writing. Those who successfully passed the exams were appointed to positions in the department.

In most cases, descendants of the nobility and officials, wealthy landowners, became officials. After all, it was easier for the son of a rich man to get an education and find himself in the ranks of officials. However, wealth in itself did not ensure membership in the bureaucracy. The fact is that with the abundance of sons and the absence of the principle of primogeniture (this is the preferential inheritance of real estate by the eldest son), even very significant property already in the third generation became practically small. Therefore, those who inherited a small part of the property of their father or grandfather and who themselves did not succeed in studying and passing competitive exams found themselves outside the bureaucratic class.

On the contrary, persistent, capable, ambitious people from poorer strata of the population could get into the class of officials. In imperial China, the scientist-official was a social ideal. All segments of the empire's population had a strong incentive to study and gain knowledge. Formally, every taxpayer had the right to try his hand at exams and, if successful, to make a brilliant career. Therefore, in practice, the appearance of a capable boy in the village attracted the attention of fellow villagers and relatives. With the financial support of relatives and a wealthy patron, he could, having overcome all obstacles, successfully pass the exams and receive a position, which promised honor and wealth not only to him, but also to his relatives and patron.

Recent weeks in Ukraine have been marked by administrative reform. And, apparently, in addition to the reassignment of ministries and the announced reduction of the bureaucratic apparatus, the authorities decided at the same time to slightly “reform” the opposition - with the help of investigators from the prosecutor’s office and the Criminal Code. You know, elections are coming very soon.

The results of these initiatives so far are as follows: Yulia Tymoshenko is under recognizance not to leave; yesterday, former head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko was detained. Two days earlier, “orange” was taken into custody former governor Dnepropetrovsk region and the head of the Ministry of Transport and Communications Viktor Bondar. Even earlier, Tymoshenko’s ex-subordinates in the Cabinet of Ministers, Yevgeny Korniychuk and Georgy Filipchuk, were arrested. If we remember that the former Minister of Economy Bohdan Danylyshyn has not been able to sleep peacefully for several months, and the leader of the party “For Ukraine!” Vyacheslav Kirilenko in the same Prosecutor General’s Office is urgently asked to explain himself regarding his comrades-in-arms - Andrey Parubiy and Yuriy Grymchak, it becomes clear that that the jokes are over. The question arises: why do the authorities need so many prisoners who can automatically turn into “martyrs”? Fighting corruption? Not funny. Personal revenge for the Maidan and its consequences? Also unlikely.

Whatever one may say, it is impossible to escape from the frightening and unpleasant definition of “persecution of the opposition” or, even worse, “political repression”: the events surrounding the Prosecutor General’s Office and other law enforcement agencies are becoming so widespread. I remember that even before the elections to local councils, political scientist Vladimir Kornilov, commenting on the facts of the detention of A. Makarenko, I. Didenko and a number of lower-ranking officials, one way or another involved in the previous government, said that there is a point in talking about political repressions.

So, the elections are over, and new criminal cases appear with enviable regularity. It is probably time to remember the saying that elections in Ukraine do not end. A parliamentary campaign is expected soon, in which the authorities, to put it mildly, do not want the participation of “inveterate oppositionists.” The pipeline for opening criminal cases in this case can be explained by the authorities’ desire to hold elections to the Verkhovna Rada as early as 2011. Political scientist, one of the leaders of the United Center party, Vadim Karasev, spoke in favor of this assumption.

“My forecast is that there will be elections in 2011. I don’t presume to judge when exactly - in the spring or autumn, but definitely in 2011. Initiating criminal cases against the opposition is simply preparation for the elections. And this preparation is not related to it’s realistic to imprison the leaders, but only to limit the possibility for them to conduct an election campaign,” said V. Karasev.

In addition, the expert is confident that preparations for the parliamentary elections in 2011 are also evidenced by personnel changes in the gubernatorial corps. Let us recall that on December 21, President Yanukovych replaced the governors of two western regions -.

“The latest changes in the gubernatorial corps also indicate that the authorities are thinking about how to strengthen before future elections those regions whose governors did not complete their “electoral homework” in the past elections,” V. Karasev noted.

Thus, the opinion about political persecution as a preliminary stage of the election campaign of the authorities exists. However, how effective can such radical methods of combating political competitors be?

Director of the International Institute of Democracies Sergei Taran believes that the constant summons of oppositionists to the Prosecutor General’s Office prevents them from influencing the Ukrainian voter as much as it helps. After all, it’s no secret that Ukrainians always sympathize more with those who are persecuted. Pressure from the authorities allows the opposition to constantly remain in the spotlight.

“It will be difficult for the authorities to achieve the desired result using such methods. If the persecution of the opposition were combined with systemic anti-corruption actions, and citizens saw the effectiveness of these reforms, then they would perceive the persecution of the opposition precisely as a fight against corruption. And so everything that happens looks exactly like political persecution Moreover, the justice mechanism applies only to oppositionists, while government officials can do anything,” says S. Taran.

Speaking about the pressure on the opposition, the political scientist also notes some stagedness and haste in the actions of the authorities. For example, accusing Yu. Tymoshenko of redirecting funds received under the Kyoto Protocol to pay pensions “adds points” to the ex-Prime Minister, as if the idea was born not in the Prosecutor General’s Office, but in the BYuT headquarters.

“Only those who want to raise Tymoshenko’s ratings could formulate the accusation this way, but the irony is that it was written by employees of the prosecutor’s office who absolutely do not understand that in the eyes of citizens everything will be perceived like this: Yulia took money from others and gave it to us, and she was imprisoned for this,” S. Taran comments on the situation.

Thus, we can say that, firstly, elections may well take place in 2011. In addition, this is supported by the urgent request of parliamentarians to the Constitutional Court to “clarify” its point of view on the date of the elections. The preliminary recommendation of the Constitutional Court, published on November 19, let us remind you, allowed the current convening of the Verkhovna Rada to proceed without hindrance.

Secondly, there is every reason to say that the authorities began a tough election campaign, armed with the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Criminal Code and a special attitude towards the opposition.

Thirdly, according to the above-mentioned political scientist V. Karasev, in the process of persecuting the opposition, the authorities adhere to a simple and understandable logic - the system needs to be “rebooted”, since the reforms are becoming more and more unpopular, and the political mechanism is failing, despite any verticals. However, as a result of the “reset”, neither Tymoshenko nor other orange oppositionists should get into the new Verkhovna Rada.

Expansion of the bureaucratic apparatus. The essence of bureaucratic management

Features of the bureaucratic apparatus of management in the Chinese monarchy

Password recovery