Any power needs legitimacy.

Legitimacy - a political property of a public authority, meaning recognition by the majority of citizens of the correctness and legality of its formation and functioning. Any power that is based on popular consensus is legitimate.

Concept "legitimacy" means recognition by the community of an indisputable basis for officials (rulers) to exercise power functions. It is opposed to the illegal seizure of power, its usurpation. Legitimacy implies trust in authorities and support for rulers, i.e. loyalty, on the part of the majority of community members, because in any society there are always people who are in opposition to the rulers.

The main thing in the concept of “legitimacy” is the nature (“tonality”) of the attitude towards power on the part of the population (people) subject to it. If the population (people) accepts and positively evaluates the government, recognizes its right to govern, and agrees to submit to it, then such power is legitimate. If this is not the case, and the people do not “love” the government and do not trust the government, although they submit to it for the time being within the framework of the instinct of self-preservation (primarily because of the fear of mass repression), then such a government appears as illegitimate.

Understanding the question of the legitimacy of state power requires knowledge of the content and sources of not only the three classical types of legitimacy - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal (democratic) - but also such types as ideological, technocratic, etc. It is also necessary to answer the question of how the legitimacy of power and its effectiveness (effectiveness) are related to each other.

Technocratic legitimacy

Along with traditional types There is also such a type of legitimacy of power (traditional, charismatic and rational-legal) as technocratic legitimacy.

For the simple reason that politics deals with the interests and destinies of millions of people and the cost of mistakes in this area often takes the form of tragedies of entire nations, the question of the effectiveness of politics and politicians is particularly acute. It is with this issue that technocratic legitimacy is connected, the core of which is the requirement for the authorities to be competent, to be professional. It should be borne in mind that for those who exercise power or hope to achieve it, politics takes on the character of a craft, a specialized occupation, which necessarily presupposes the presence of special knowledge and experience. If this is not so, then politics turns into politicking and loses its effectiveness. Russians express the essence of technocratic legitimacy very figuratively folk proverbs: “I picked up the tug, don’t say it’s not strong,” “If you don’t know the ford, don’t poke your nose into the water.”

As a formula reflecting the relationship (interdependence) between the legitimacy and effectiveness of power, the rule is: the degree of legitimacy of power is most often directly proportional to its effectiveness, i.e. the more efficiency, the more legitimacy. And vice versa. If this efficiency, as they say, “the cat cried,” then the initially legitimate government, which does not cope with the tasks assigned to it, over time loses the trust of citizens and turns into illegitimate in their eyes.

If we evaluate the government in post-socialist Russia through this prism, then it clearly lacks professionalism. It is known that Germany and Japan, defeated and thoroughly destroyed in the Second World War, took about 15-20 years to perform an “economic miracle” and be reborn like a “phoenix from the ashes.” Over the same period of time (if we date the start of market reforms to August 1991), we have not yet even restored in full something that (through thoughtlessness or malicious intent) was thoroughly destroyed.

It is no coincidence that on October 26, 2006 - the day after the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin spoke live with the people, during which he had to “take the rap” for all the “sins” of the executive powers that be - the then Chairman of the Federal Government M. Fradkov put the members his office a disappointing diagnosis: “collective irresponsibility” associated with “organizational weakness and insufficient knowledge of the subject.” That is, what you lead and manage.

Types of legitimacy

Distinguish three "ideal types" legitimacy:

• traditional, based on a body of customs, the validity of which has been recognized since time immemorial, and on the habit ingrained in a person to adhere to such customs;
• charismatic, which is entirely characterized by the personal devotion of people subordinate to the cause of a person and their trust only in his person as a leader-chief;
• rational, arising from the correspondence of power to the rational principle with the help of which the legal order of the current political system is established.

In relation to this last type, the concept of “democratic legitimacy” is used as a synonym.

In addition to these three “ideal types”, other types of legitimacy are distinguished, namely:

• technocratic, which can be expressed by the Russian proverb: “If you take up the tug, don’t say it’s not strong,” i.e. power must be professional;
• ontological(ontology - the doctrine of being), which contains the correspondence of power to the universal principles of human and social existence.

Structural legitimacy

The most important factor in recognizing the validity of the board is the formation of authorities on the basis of legality. This structural legitimacy(first view). It is called so because it determines the structure of the political system. Such legitimacy can come in two forms. Firstly, this traditional legitimacy, which implies public recognition of rulers who have received power in accordance with the traditions and customs of a given community: elders, chief (the most authoritative leader), monarch, etc. Secondly, this is more common in democratic communities legal legitimacy, i.e. public recognition of the transfer of power in accordance with established laws on elections of government bodies.

However, the acquisition of powers by rulers on a legal basis does not yet guarantee them the preservation of trust and support, that is, legitimacy. Abuse of power, violation of laws and citizens' ideas about justice, ineffectiveness of authorities in managing society can cause a political crisis, erosion of trust, i.e. loss of legitimacy. In established democracies, crises of legitimacy are resolved in a civilized manner. For this purpose, procedures are provided for the removal from power of a ruler who has lost his authority. For example, an increase in extra-parliamentary forms of political activity (rallies, protest marches, etc.) can lead to the voluntary resignation of political leaders, early elections, a referendum, etc.

Charismatic legitimacy

Charismatic legitimacy is based on faith in the special talent of the leader, who claims access to political power, my charisma - a Divine gift, grace. Citizens' trust in this case is emotional in nature and is based on personal sympathy for the leader. At the same time, on both sides the importance of legal norms is belittled. The charismatic method of legitimizing rulers is often used during periods of revolution, when new authorities cannot rely on law or tradition.

The named types of legitimacy are ideal models. In political practice they are intertwined and complement each other. New types of legitimacy are currently emerging. The rise of nationalism led to the emergence of the so-called ethnic legitimacy— formation of power structures along national lines. This variety can be classified as a type of legal legitimacy, when the qualification of nationality is explicitly or implicitly used in elections.

Degree of legitimacy, i.e., trust in rulers, is quite difficult to establish quantitatively. However, there are certain indicators that can be used for this purpose. Among them are: the level of coercion required to carry out management functions by the rulers; the nature of attempts to replace government representatives, manifestations of civil disobedience (riots, strikes, etc.); election results; survey results; etc.

Legitimacy of political power

Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. The word “legitimacy” itself comes from Lat. legitimus- law. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, theoretical justifications emerged that a monarch who becomes a tyrant and does not fulfill his destiny deprives his power of legitimacy. In this case, the people have the right to overthrow such a government (F. Aquinas spoke about this, in particular).

Legitimacy is the confidence of the people that the government will fulfill its obligations; recognition of the authority of the authorities and voluntary submission to it; an idea of ​​the correct and appropriate use of power, including violence. Legitimate power, as a rule, is capable of ensuring stability and development of society without resorting to violence.

M. Weber identified three main types of political domination and the corresponding forms of legitimacy:

• traditional domination - legitimacy based on the traditions of a patriarchal society, for example, monarchy - traditional legitimacy;
• charismatic dominance - legitimacy based on real or imaginary outstanding qualities of a ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy;
• domination based on rationally created rules— rational and legal legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in a democratic society.

In addition to those listed, there are other types of legitimacy, for example: ontological, ideological, structural, etc.

Ontological legitimacy most characteristic of ancient and traditional societies, when existing standards existence is perceived by people as a naturally (non-human) established order, and its violation as a catastrophe, anarchy, chaos. This is the recognition by a person (society) of the existing order as the norm of existence, which applies not only to society, but to all outer space. Such legitimacy is closely connected with the life and death of the canonized political leader of the nation. His life represents power and order, and his death represents anarchy and chaos. History knows many examples when, after the death of their leader, people experienced fear of the future. As an example, we can cite the death of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Kim Il Sung (North Korea), etc.

At the core ideological legitimacy there lie certain ideological “constructs” - attractive ideas, promises of a “bright future” or “new world order”, religious dogmas, etc. Thus, communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely provided legitimacy to the Soviet regime of power; The ideas of National Socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany. Some countries in the Near and Middle East have elevated Islam to the rank of state ideology.

Structural legitimacy is based on the rules and norms established in society for the establishment and change of power, for example, the constitution (constitutional legitimacy). If the majority of citizens are dissatisfied with the existing political power in society, then they “tolerate” it until new elections.

The legitimacy of power is closely related to its effectiveness. The government, which has legitimate grounds for dominance in society, as a result of its ineffective policies may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. On the contrary, power that has no legal basis, as a result of effective policies, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. The process of recognizing the legitimacy of power is called se legitimization, and its loss of legitimacy - delegitimization.

Any political power, even the most reactionary, strives to appear effective and legitimate in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the world community. Therefore, the process of legitimizing power is a subject of special concern to the ruling elite. One of the most common techniques is to hush up the negative results of one’s policies and “stuff out” real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Often, independent means become an obstacle to such substitution of negative factors for positive ones. mass media. Illegitimate and ineffective authorities are afraid to enter into dialogue with society and with their opponents, so as not to completely reveal their inconsistency. Therefore, it strives in every way to limit the activities of independent media or put them under its control.

- (Latin legitimus, from lex, legis law). Law. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. LEGITIMATE [lat. legitimus] legal, corresponding to the law. Dictionary of foreign words. Komlev N.G ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

legitimate- competent, legitimate, legal Dictionary of Russian synonyms. legitimate adj. legal, corresponding to the law) Dictionary of Russian synonyms. Context 5.0 Informatics. 2012… Dictionary of synonyms

legitimate- oh, oh. légitime adj. 1. Consistent with the laws, legal. Legitimate rights. BAS 1. However, her Smirnova’s trip abroad is probably a consequence of her extra legal or lying position, in order to stop rumors, if not with that... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

LEGITIMATE- LEGITIMATE, oh, oh (special). Recognized by law, in accordance with the law. | noun legitimacy, and, women. L. authorities. Dictionary Ozhegova. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Legitimate- adj. Being in accordance with the law in force in the state; legal, competent. Ephraim's explanatory dictionary. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

legitimate- legitimate; briefly the form of me, me... Russian spelling dictionary

legitimate- cr.f. legiti/men, legiti/mna, many, me... Spelling dictionary Russian language

legitimate- oh, oh; me, me, a lot. [from lat. legitimus legal, lawful] Lawful. This is the power... Encyclopedic Dictionary

Legitimate- That which is genuine, valid or legal. For example, a legal migrant enters with the legitimate intention of complying with immigration laws and presents legitimate travel documents. cm. also conscientious... International Migration Law: Glossary of Terms

legitimate- legal... Dictionary of Foreign Words edited by I. Mostitsky

Books

• Tiberius. Third Caesar, second Augustus, I. O. Prince. The monograph of Doctor of Historical Sciences Professor I. O. Knyazky is dedicated to the life and deeds of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Tiberius became the third Caesar to receive supreme power, he... Buy for 754 rubles
• Tiberius. Third Caesar, second Augustus..., I. O. Prince. The monograph of Doctor of Historical Sciences Professor I. O. Knyazky is dedicated to the life and deeds of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Tiberius became the third Caesar to receive supreme power, he -...

The term "legitimacy" had several meanings. It arose at the beginning of the 19th century in France and was initially practically identified with the term “legalite” (legality). It was used to denote legally established power, as opposed to forcibly usurped power (legitimacy originally came down to its legality, i.e. the presence of a legal source of power and a legal basis for its possession).

Over time, the concepts of legitimacy and legality have become separated. Legitimacy – This is the legal formalization of power, the correspondence of this power to objective law. Legitimacy(classical definition - M. Weber) - the moral justification of the existence of a state from the point of view of the majority of its citizens, expressed in the voluntary acceptance of state power by this majority.

However, the term “legitimacy” does not have a strictly legal content and is not fixed in constitutions. In contrast to legality, which is the legal justification of power, its norms and laws, legitimacy reflects the degree of compliance of power with the value concepts of the majority of citizens.

Legality of state power - This is a legal concept, which means the legal justification of power and its compliance with legal norms. The form of legalization of power is legislative (the Constitution or, for example, the Act of Succession to the Throne).

For citizens, the legality of government consists of obedience to laws and their implementation. Any government that makes laws, even unpopular ones, but ensures their implementation is legal. The legality of state power is the recognition of the legitimacy of its emergence and the action of power within the framework of legality. The term “legality” allows us to distinguish between legally established authority(based on elections or succession to the throne) from usurper, i.e. forcibly captured as a result of a coup, riot, etc.

Legitimacy of state power– this is the quality of the relationship between power and those under power, which is expressed in: 1) its basis on universal moral values; 2) voluntary recognition by the population of the right of the authorities to govern and psychological readiness to obey its orders and consent to the use of coercive measures by the authorities.

Therefore, legal power can be simultaneously illegitimate. Legitimate power, in contrast to legal power, is power that is accepted and approved by the population. Legality and legitimacy may diverge over time.

Legitimacy has no legal content and is not enshrined in the Constitution. Legitimacy reflects the degree to which the authorities comply with the value concepts of the majority of citizens, i.e. This is a special moral and psychological assessment.

Legitimacy can be true and false (social demagoguery, deception). The concept of legitimacy does not coincide among different segments of the population. Legitimacy must be constantly maintained, as it is a matter of consent, obedience and political participation without coercion. The legitimacy of state power leads to trust and authority, and hence the effectiveness of state power.

The question of legitimacy is a question of boundaries, of the legality of coercion applied by the authorities to individuals and legal entities.

Political history shows that legal power can be illegitimate and, vice versa.

Modern state power that wants to be effective must be both legal and legitimate, or simply legitimate, if this concept includes the legal aspect (legality) of the existence of state power.

Types of legitimacy (Max Weber).

Based on the fact that different types of power achieve authority with the help of different resources, M. Weber proposed to identify three ideal types of legitimacy of power: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. He based this classification on the motive of submission.

1. Traditional type of legitimacy. This type of legitimacy was a historical first. It is based on faith in the sacredness of customs and traditions, their unshakability. The ideological form is a reference to the divine origin of power and the sacredness of the right of succession to the throne. Monarchs receive their power from God. In this way, a conviction is created in the legitimacy, greatness of power and the need to obey customs and traditions. Not only subjects, but also holders of power must obey customs and traditions. If the holder of power allows a violation, then divine law allows for rebellion and even regicide. Such power was called acquisitive, and from here it can be overthrown. Thus, the authority of leaders, monarchs, and kings is based on the habit of submitting to authority, belief in its divine character and the sacredness of the right of succession to the throne. The traditional type of legitimacy has survived to the present day, although it has been noticeably transformed. This includes royal regimes in countries such as Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, and Kuwait.

2. Charismatic type of legitimacy. The charismatic type of legitimacy is based on “the authority of an extraordinary personal gift (charisma), complete personal devotion and personal trust caused by the presence of leader qualities in a person.” "Charisma" translated from Greek means "divine gift, grace." The personality cult of a leader or leader is charismatic. Submission and consent are emotional and personal. The effect and significance of legal norms have been weakened. The charismatic leader's entourage and his army do not have a clearly defined legal status. The charismatic type of power is characterized by absolute legitimacy, since it is based on the population’s faith in the exceptional qualities of a political figure. Often the image of such a leader is consciously formed in society on the basis of the desires and ideas that prevail among the majority of the population. The charismatic type of legitimacy is also attributed to Soviet political leaders (Stalin). The charismatic type of power predominates in economically and socio-politically backward states. In modern conditions, the charismatic legitimacy of power is preserved mainly in African countries, where charisma is a form of organized political worship, i.e. a kind of political religion that deifies the personality of the leader.

3. Rational-bureaucratic type of legitimacy (legal). It is based on faith in the legality and fairness of the existing rules for the formation and functioning of institutions of political power. Belief in universal, equal, direct suffrage by secret ballot. Government institutions are subject to the law in their activities. The motive for the population's subordination to power is the rationally conscious interest of the voter, who expresses it in elections by voting for one or another party or leader. Leader turnover is a consequence of mistrust that he will not abuse power. The main sign of fairness in government is adherence to the laws, but both citizens and holders of power must follow the laws. No subject (political, religious, etc.) should evade the execution of laws. To realize its goals, such power creates a rigid, branched organization, i.e. bureaucracy.

“legitimacy” has a political and legal meaning, meaning a positive attitude of citizens and large social groups (including foreign ones) towards the institutions of political power operating in each particular state, recognition of the legitimacy of their existence.

Legitimacy is expressed in the voluntary recognition of the authorities in the country by the population. The people agree to submit to such power because they consider it authoritative, the decisions it makes are fair, and the management order that has developed in the state is the best at the moment. Naturally, in any country there were, are and will be citizens who break the laws; who disagree with the current government and the way it is governed and oppose it. Absolute support can never be achieved, and this is not necessary. The one that is supported by the majority of members of society will be considered legitimate.

Legitimacy is the trust of the masses, their acceptance of power through the prism of public consciousness, and the justification of its actions from a moral point of view. Citizens express approval of the authorities based on their ideas about goodness, justice, morality, fairness, honor and conscience. Legitimacy ensures obedience without coercion, and if in achieving it the use of force is allowed, then as a justification for such measures.

Highlight following types legitimacy: traditional, charismatic and rational.

Traditional legitimacy is formed on the basis of society’s belief in the inevitability and necessity of subordination to the current government, which over time acquires the status of a custom, a tradition of subordination to power. This type legitimacy is inherent in hereditary types of government, for example, monarchy.

Charismatic legitimacy, as a result of the formed faith of people, and their recognition of the outstanding qualities of an individual political leader. This image is endowed with exceptional human qualities (charisma). It is transferred by society to the entire system of political power. The authority of the leader is unconditionally accepted by the masses. This type of legitimacy in most cases arises during revolutions, when previously existing ideals are broken. People, unable to rely on former norms, associate faith in a leader with hopes for a bright future.

Rational legitimacy arises when society recognizes justice and the legitimacy of those democratic procedures on which the system of political power is formed. This type is born thanks to the conscious understanding by each member of society of the presence of third-party interests, which ultimately presupposes the need to create rules of behavior, the observance of which makes it possible to achieve one’s own goals.

With power, when he voluntarily recognizes its right to make binding decisions. The lower the level legitimacy, the more often power will rely on force.

Legitimate an action is an action that is not disputed by any of the players who have the right and opportunity to dispute this action. An action ceases to be legitimate when the subject of the action has to make special efforts to protect his right to act as he did.

Legitimate, oh, oh(specialist.). Recognized by law, in accordance with the law. || noun legitimacy, -i, g. L. authorities. (Ozhegov’s Dictionary, Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language)

Besides, legitimacy- a political and legal concept that means a positive attitude of residents of the country, large groups, public opinion (including foreign) towards those operating in a particular state, recognition of their legitimacy.

Political legitimacy

In relation to political legitimacy The famous English political scientist David Beetham developed a “normative structure of political legitimacy”:

Legitimacy means recognition by the population of a given government and its right to govern. Legitimate power is accepted by the masses, and not simply imposed on them. The masses agree to submit to such power, considering it fair, authoritative, and the existing order the best for the country. Of course, in society there are always citizens who violate laws, who do not agree with a given political course, who do not support the government. The legitimacy of power means that it is supported by the majority, that laws are executed by the main part of society. Legitimacy should not be confused with the concept that also exists in political science legality authorities. The legality of power is its legal justification, its legality, compliance with the legal norms existing in the state. Legitimacy, unlike legality, is not a legal fact, but a socio-psychological phenomenon. Any government that makes laws, even unpopular ones, but ensures their implementation is legal. At the same time, it may be illegitimate and not recognized by the people. There may also be illegal power in society, for example, the mafia, which, in principle, can also be perceived by the people (or part of it) as legitimate or illegitimate.

Legitimacy is trust and acceptance of power by public consciousness, justification of its actions, therefore it is associated with moral assessment. Citizens approve of the authorities based on their moral criteria, ideas about goodness, justice, decency, and conscience. Legitimacy is intended to ensure obedience, consent without coercion, and if it is not achieved, then to justify coercion and the use of force. Legitimate authorities and policies are authoritative and effective.

In order to win and maintain legitimacy and the trust of the people, the authorities resort to argumentation of their actions (legitimation), turning to the highest values ​​(justice, truth), to history, feelings and emotions, moods, the real or fictitious will of the people, the dictates of the time, scientific and technical progress, production requirements, historical tasks of the country, etc. To justify violence and repression, dividing people into “us” and “strangers” is often used.

The principles of legitimacy (beliefs) may have their origins in ancient traditions, revolutionary charisma or in current legislation. A corresponding typology of legitimacy, which is widely accepted, was introduced by Max Weber. According to it, three types of legitimacy correspond to three sources of legitimacy of political power: tradition, charisma and rational-legal basis. Weber emphasized that we are not talking about classifying any real regime as one of the types, but about abstractions (the so-called “ ideal types"), in specific political systems combined in varying proportions.

Depending on which of the listed motives for the population’s support of the political normative order prevails in society, it is customary to distinguish the following types of legitimacy: traditional, charismatic and rational.

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

Write a review about the article "Legitimacy"

Literature

• D. Beetham. The Legitimation of Power. London: Macmillan, 1991.
• Achkasov V. A., Eliseev S. M., Lantsov S. A. Legitimation of power in post-socialist Russian society. - M.: Aspect Press, 1996. - 125

Notes

See also

Excerpt characterizing Legitimacy

- What, my beauty, do you need? - Ilyin said, smiling.
- The princess ordered to find out what regiment you are and your last names?
“This is Count Rostov, squadron commander, and I am your humble servant.”
- B...se...e...du...shka! - the drunk man sang, smiling happily and looking at Ilyin talking to the girl. Following Dunyasha, Alpatych approached Rostov, taking off his hat from afar.
“I dare to bother you, your honor,” he said with respect, but with relative disdain for the youth of this officer and putting his hand in his bosom. “My lady, the daughter of General Chief Prince Nikolai Andreevich Bolkonsky, who died this fifteenth, being in difficulty due to the ignorance of these persons,” he pointed to the men, “asks you to come... would you like,” Alpatych said with a sad smile, “to leave a few, otherwise it’s not so convenient when... - Alpatych pointed to two men who were running around him from behind, like horseflies around a horse.
- A!.. Alpatych... Eh? Yakov Alpatych!.. Important! forgive for Christ's sake. Important! Eh?.. – the men said, smiling joyfully at him. Rostov looked at the drunken old men and smiled.
– Or perhaps this consoles your Excellency? - said Yakov Alpatych with a sedate look, pointing at the old people with his hand not tucked into his bosom.
“No, there’s little consolation here,” Rostov said and drove off. -What's the matter? – he asked.
“I dare to report to your excellency that the rude people here do not want to let the lady out of the estate and threaten to turn away the horses, so in the morning everything is packed and her ladyship cannot leave.”
- Can't be! - Rostov screamed.
“I have the honor to report to you the absolute truth,” Alpatych repeated.
Rostov got off his horse and, handing it over to the messenger, went with Alpatych to the house, asking him about the details of the case. Indeed, yesterday’s offer of bread from the princess to the peasants, her explanation with Dron and the gathering spoiled the matter so much that Dron finally handed over the keys, joined the peasants and did not appear at Alpatych’s request, and that in the morning, when the princess ordered the laying to go, the peasants came out in a large crowd to the barn and sent to say that they would not let the princess out of the village, that there was an order not to be taken out, and they would unharness the horses. Alpatych came out to them, admonishing them, but they answered him (Karp spoke most of all; Dron did not appear from the crowd) that the princess could not be released, that there was an order for that; but let the princess stay, and they will serve her as before and obey her in everything.
At that moment, when Rostov and Ilyin galloped along the road, Princess Marya, despite the dissuading of Alpatych, the nanny and the girls, ordered the laying and wanted to go; but, seeing the galloping cavalrymen, they were mistaken for the French, the coachmen fled, and the crying of women arose in the house.
- Father! dear father! “God sent you,” said tender voices, while Rostov walked through the hallway.
Princess Marya, lost and powerless, sat in the hall while Rostov was brought to her. She did not understand who he was, and why he was, and what would happen to her. Seeing him Russian face and upon his entrance and the first words spoken, recognizing him as a man of her circle, she looked at him with her deep and radiant gaze and began to speak in a voice that was broken and trembling with emotion. Rostov immediately imagined something romantic in this meeting. “A defenseless, grief-stricken girl, alone, left at the mercy of rude, rebellious men! And some strange fate pushed me here! - Rostov thought, listening to her and looking at her. - And what meekness, nobility in her features and expression! – he thought, listening to her timid story.
When she spoke about the fact that all this happened the day after her father’s funeral, her voice trembled. She turned away and then, as if afraid that Rostov would take her words for a desire to pity him, she looked at him inquiringly and fearfully. Rostov had tears in his eyes. Princess Marya noticed this and looked gratefully at Rostov with that radiant look of hers, which made one forget the ugliness of her face.
“I can’t express, princess, how happy I am that I came here by chance and will be able to show you my readiness,” said Rostov, getting up. “Please go, and I answer you with my honor that not a single person will dare to make trouble for you, if you only allow me to escort you,” and, bowing respectfully, as they bow to ladies of royal blood, he headed to the door.
By the respectful tone of his tone, Rostov seemed to show that, despite the fact that he would consider his acquaintance with her a blessing, he did not want to take advantage of the opportunity of her misfortune to get closer to her.
Princess Marya understood and appreciated this tone.
“I am very, very grateful to you,” the princess told him in French, “but I hope that all this was just a misunderstanding and that no one is to blame for it.” “The princess suddenly began to cry. “Excuse me,” she said.
Rostov, frowning, bowed deeply again and left the room.

- Well, honey? No, brother, my pink beauty, and their name is Dunyasha... - But, looking at Rostov’s face, Ilyin fell silent. He saw that his hero and commander was in a completely different way of thinking.
Rostov looked back angrily at Ilyin and, without answering him, with quick steps headed towards the village.
“I’ll show them, I’ll give them a hard time, the robbers!” - he said to himself.
Alpatych, at a swimming pace, so as not to run, barely caught up with Rostov at a trot.
– What decision did you decide to make? - he said, catching up with him.
Rostov stopped and, clenching his fists, suddenly moved menacingly towards Alpatych.
- Solution? What's the solution? Old bastard! - he shouted at him. -What were you watching? A? Men are rebelling, but you can’t cope? You yourself are a traitor. I know you, I’ll skin you all...” And, as if afraid to waste his reserve of ardor in vain, he left Alpatych and quickly walked forward. Alpatych, suppressing the feeling of insult, kept up with Rostov at a floating pace and continued to communicate his thoughts to him. He said that the men were stubborn, that at the moment it was unwise to oppose them without having a military command, that it would not be better to send for a command first.
“I’ll give them a military command... I’ll fight them,” Nikolai said senselessly, suffocating from unreasonable animal anger and the need to vent this anger. Not realizing what he would do, unconsciously, with a quick, decisive step, he moved towards the crowd. And the closer he moved to her, the more Alpatych felt that his unreasonable act could produce good results. The men of the crowd felt the same, looking at his fast and firm gait and decisive, frowning face.
After the hussars entered the village and Rostov went to the princess, there was confusion and discord in the crowd. Some men began to say that these newcomers were Russians and how they would not be offended by the fact that they did not let the young lady out. Drone was of the same opinion; but as soon as he expressed it, Karp and other men attacked the former headman.
– How many years have you been eating the world? - Karp shouted at him. - It’s all the same to you! You dig up the little jar, take it away, do you want to destroy our houses or not?
- It was said that there should be order, no one should leave the house, so as not to take out any blue gunpowder - that’s all it is! - shouted another.
“There was a line for your son, and you probably regretted your hunger,” the little old man suddenly spoke quickly, attacking Dron, “and you shaved my Vanka.” Eh, we're going to die!
- Then we’ll die!
“I am not a refuser from the world,” said Dron.
- He’s not a refusenik, he’s grown a belly!..