Public power is such a special phenomenon that characterizes relations between people. This concept is significantly different from such forms of influence as, for example, oratorical talent or “power” of an outstanding mind. Forced, imperious way it is impossible to determine the desired behavior of any object, especially using natural data or the value qualities of the phenomenon. The indicated forms of influence are only incentive behaviors that have a spontaneous, meaningless character. They cannot include the moment of their realization as a power (or public power) and are not perceived as volitional coercion by an object.
When considering this concept on a territorial plane, public power is a relationship of submission and domination, recognized by both the object and the subject. Quite simply and at the same time, from the position of science, the German political scientist M. Weber formulated the concept of “power” under consideration as an opportunity to impose one’s own will, even despite resistance. For example, a speaker that delights the audience does not exhibit deliberate volitional coercion. Moreover, such coercion is quite common in our life. For example, the imposition of his will in the family by his father. Or another example: deciding on payments by the board of directors of a company, etc. However, such power does not manifest itself on the basis of public and social interests, but is based on relations of a different kind: family or economic.
Public power should be exercised in the interests of the collective whose embodiment it has appeared. But in fact it looks a little different: it is often used by forces that dominate in a given society, which can exert influence using economic, political and ideological levers. Sometimes this type of power will be able to turn into the personal power of a particular leader, and the owners of such public powers of any collective may adhere to positions that are contrary to collective interests. And even in cases where public authority exercises its powers in the interests of the collective, its body in the form of certain employees, personnel or managers has its own interests. History shows that such contradictions are resolved by bringing the power and will of the collective into line in various ways, sometimes right up to the revolution.
Moving to the highest level of relations between the authorities and ordinary citizens, the intermediary between these two parties is the state body. This type of authority is designed to govern the state as a whole and society in particular. The structure of state representatives is the presence of state authorities, including central and regional, as well as local governments. It is the representatives of these bodies that exercise and personify public authority on state territory.
The structure and system of public authorities in any state should be determined by the ruling political force and enshrined in relevant regulations. Thus, the Constitution distinguishes such bodies and their institutions that exercise control over regional, federal and local organizations (for example, the prosecutor's office, various financial control services, central election commissions, etc.). Rendering a certain impact on citizens is not left without attention here.
At the local and regional levels, the number of such public authorities may vary depending on regional characteristics, as well as adopted decrees, decisions of the highest authorities and, of course, are regulated by the Constitution of the country.
