Features of political ideology. Politics and power. Political status of the individual. General characteristics of the political system of the Russian Federation

PAGE 21

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Chapter 1. The concept of the political process……………………………………. 5

Chapter 2. Features of the political process in Russia……………………12

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………20

List of used literature…………………………………………..21

Introduction

Politics is inherently an activity, so it cannot but be a process. The political process is the total activity of social communities, public organizations and groups, individuals pursuing certain political goals. In a narrow sense, the activities of social actors to implement political decisions.

The political process unfolds in a given country within the framework of the political system of society, as well as in regional and on a global scale. In society, it is carried out at the state level, in administrative-territorial regions, in cities and villages. In addition, it operates within various nations, classes, socio-demographic groups, political parties and social movements. Thus, the political process reveals superficial or deep changes in the political system, characterizes its transition from one state to another. Therefore, in general, the political process in relation to the political system reveals movement, dynamics, evolution, change in time and space.

The main stages of the political process express the dynamics of the development of the political system, starting with its constitution and subsequent reform. Its main content is related to the preparation, adoption and registration at the appropriate level, the execution of political and managerial decisions, their necessary correction, social and other control during practical implementation.

Individuals and social groups within a particular political system are far from equally involved in the political process. Some are indifferent to politics, others participate in it from time to time, and others are passionate about political struggle. Even among those who play an active role in political events, only a few passionately strive for power.

Can be distinguished by the degree of increasing activity of participation in the political process the following groups: 1) an apolitical group, 2) voters in elections, 3) those participating in the activities of political parties and other political organizations and their campaigns, 4) political career seekers and political leaders.

At present, representative social strata and movements, including parties, trade unions, the army, students and youth, national organizations, confessions, support and pressure groups, and creative unions, are more actively involved in political processes compared to the past.

Political processes within individual countries are significantly influenced by external factors, the entire set of economic, political, military-strategic and other realities of an international nature. Therefore, we can say that political processes are of two types: foreign policy and domestic policy. From the point of view of the systemic qualities of the organization of political power, they differ into two large classes: democratic, where they combine various shapes direct and representative democracy
non-democratic, the internal diversity of which is determined by the presence in power of theocratic or military groups, authoritarian leaders or monarchs, parties of one type or another.

The purpose of the work is to study the political process using the example of modern Russia.

Chapter 1. The concept of the political process

The interaction of political subjects regarding state power presupposes a procedural approach, which allows us to explore the causes of the emergence of certain political problems, the process of developing and making political decisions, the creation of new management structures, i.e. we're talking about about political practice, concrete management, exchange of information between subjects of the political process and much more. All this constitutes the essence of the political process, which reflects political reality and is the result of the struggle of interests of various political forces, social groups and citizens, and their influence on power structures. The result of the interaction of various subjects is the creation of stable connections and relationships, the emergence of new rules and norms, the creation or reproduction of political institutions.

The most significant differences between the procedural and other interpretations of the world of politics are that they reveal the constant variability of various features and characteristics of political phenomena. IN in this context We are talking about the dynamic characteristics of politics associated with changes in the behavior and relationships of subjects regarding power interests, which unfolds in time and space.

The political process is understood as the dynamic dimension of political life, which consists in the reproduction of the components of the political system of society, as well as in changing its state; political activity of political subjects associated with the struggle for power and influencing power structures.

In political science, as a rule, processes are considered at the macro and micro levels. The macro level is associated with the reproduction of the political system, which is carried out under the influence of factors acting on it. At the micro level, the political process is understood as a set of subprocesses, as a certain resultant of the actions (actions) of various social and political subjects. The political process acts as a result of the influence of interest groups on government bodies, which leads to the adoption of decisions that affect the state of society.

The political process is considered as one of the social processes, along with economic, ideological, legal, and also as a form of functioning of the political system of society, evolving in time and space. Thus, A. Degtyarev considers the political process as “a social macro-process, firstly, characterizing the temporal sequence of integral states of communication between people regarding power in the space of its legitimate maintenance; secondly, expressing the resultant result of individual and group micro-actions, that is, the total political activity of a given community; thirdly, including the ways of interaction between state and society, institutions and groups, political system and social environment, government and citizen; and fourthly, simultaneously reproducing and changing the structural-functional and institutional matrix (hierarchy of rules and forms) of the political order (system).”

The content of the political process in modern Russia is strengthening and increasing the efficiency of state power, reforming the state apparatus, strengthening market relations, establishing transparency in the actions of government bodies, parties, public organizations, development political pluralism and constructive opposition to the authorities.

The content of the political process is influenced by the following factors: the degree of separation and balance between legislative, executive and judiciary; level of centralization (decentralization) of power; interaction of party and government structures directly or indirectly influencing the political decision-making process; ways of making and implementing political decisions; the relationship between the rights and prerogatives of central and local authorities; relationships within the ruling layer (relations between the ruling and opposition elites, level of corruption, etc.).

One of the most common modern political processes is democratization. Domestic political scientist V. Nikonov, determining the direction of the political process in modern Russia, believes that in order to give it a democratic direction, it is necessary to observe two principles.

The first of these states: “...the political process must operate and develop in accordance with rules and procedures that are beyond the control of one person, even the most powerful,” on the basis that political leaders should not determine the rules by which they will play.

The second principle is that " existing reality, the conflicts that the era gives rise to should not dictate the process of creating a political system and should not find their immediate resolution at the moment when a new democratic state is created. Because the desire to reconcile the interests of all participants in the political game at the stage of creating a new constitution threatens future conflicts, the nature of which cannot be fully predicted.”

Some researchers define the structure of the political process as a set of interactions between actors, as well as their logical sequence. Others refer to structure the following elements: subjects, objects, as well as means, methods, resources.

Subjects, temporal and spatial units of measurement, factors influencing political changes, norms regulating relations between participants are called parameters of the political process. The outcome of the political process depends on a combination of factors, both internal and external to it. Internal factors include the characteristics of subjects, the distribution of power resources, and the logic of the political process. External factors are socio-economic, socio-cultural conditions that form the environment, as well as its impact, which are circumstances external to a given political process (rules of the political game, external political events, etc.). Inconsistency between elements of the political process can lead to unforeseen results.

The methods of interaction are determined by the types of relationships between actors. Available various options political interactions: confrontation, neutrality, compromise, alliance, consensus. This division is based on the principle of correlation between social interests and political positions of the subjects coming into contact.

Confrontation presupposes open confrontation between political subjects. Neutrality promotes the subject’s temporary withdrawal from the field of active interactions. Compromise is based on mutual concessions, the purpose of which is to maintain a stable status quo in relations between subjects. A union is a closer, perhaps even friendly, form of political interaction when there is objectively an intersection of interests and some coincidence of positions. Consensus is achieved by agreeing on all key positions with almost complete coincidence in everyone’s understanding of their interests.

Resources may include knowledge, science, technical and financial means, ideology, mass sentiment, public opinion, etc. The object of the political process is, as a rule, society, consisting of various classes and social groups, as well as individuals. The means include both non-violent ones associated with communicative actions, and means of state pressure. The method of exercising power is the political regime, which determines the form of the political process (democratic or authoritarian).

The structure of the political process also includes political relations regarding production, distribution, exchange and consumption, as well as political behavior, including political activity and political participation.

Interactions between ruling group, performing management functions, and other groups of society influencing the ruling elite, collaborating or competing with each other, form the general content of the political process, understood as a transition from one structure of the balance of power to another.

Exist different approaches to determine the nature and content of the political process. The nature of the analysis of the political process depends on the chosen research method: either it will be a micro-level with an analysis of the specifics of individual political behavior, or the level of a political institution or political system to study political processes on a national scale.

The main approaches include institutional, behavioral, structural-functional, rational choice theory, discursive and some others.

Representatives of the institutional approach pay their main attention to the study of the main subject of the political process - political institutions. This is one of the oldest methodological approaches, which has undergone significant evolution, adopting some principles of other methodological approaches. Institutionalists study formal legal aspects government controlled, in particular constitutional documents and the implementation of their provisions in practice, institutional conditions for public service, institutional dynamics of different regimes.

Behavioralists focus their attention not on political institutions, but on the mechanisms of exercising power. The subject of their analysis is political behavior at the individual and social aggregate levels. Behavioralists have come to the attention of numerous aspects of the political process related to political behavior, such as leadership, activities of political parties and interest groups, voting in elections, participation in other forms of political activity, including unconventional ones (demonstrations, strikes). The initiators and followers of the behavioral approach to the analysis of political processes were, first of all, representatives of the Chicago School of American political science B. Berelson, P. Lazersfeld, G. Lasswell, C. Merriam and others.

Proponents of structural-functional analysis, the founder of which is T. Parsons, represent society as a system that includes stable elements and methods of connections between these elements, which together form the structure of the system. Each of the elements performs a specific function, which is important for maintaining the integrity of the system.

Rational choice theory studies a person as an independent, active political actor, taking into account the nature of his attitudes, the choice of optimal behavior and other characteristics. It comes from the secondary nature of politics in relation to the individual and from the rationalization of the individual’s actions in accordance with the maximum benefit. The purpose of the analysis is to search for such conditions of the political game under which participants choose certain behavioral strategies that are beneficial to both themselves and other participants. The main representatives of the theory of rational choice are D. Black, E. Downs, M. Olson, V. Riker, G. Simon, G. Tullock and others.

The discourse approach is based on the possibility of studying the political process through communication using verbal and non-verbal components through social dialogue occurring through public institutions between individuals, groups and social institutions. To analyze political discourse in the 1980s. a center for semiotic research was created, centered around T. Van Dyck.

There are other approaches to the study of political processes. Thus, D. Easton used system analysis, which divided the process into four main phases: input the impact of the environment on the political system in the form of its support and making demands on it; conversion transformation of requirements into solutions; output the reaction of the political system in the form of decisions and actions; feedback return to the starting point of equilibrium. This model of the cyclical functioning of the political process was popular in the second half of the twentieth century.

Micro-level research is associated with the names of V. Pareto and A. Bentley. V. Pareto considered the elite as the subject and driving force of the political process, which is opposed by the counter-elites, as well as the people, who primarily perform passive role. A. Bentley is responsible for the interpretation of the dynamics of the political process as struggle and mutual pressure of social groups in the struggle for state power.

HE. Smolin proposes using the method of political-situational analysis to study the political process. This method involves identifying the characteristics and patterns of historical situations; identification of sets of such characteristics and patterns, each of which describes a certain type of historical situations; the use of one of these sets as a criterion for classifying the historical situation under study as a certain type; forecasting, based on the parameters and patterns of a given type of historical situation, the main scenarios for its development and the most probable of them.

Chapter 2. Features of the political process in Russia

Modern Russian society is one of the transitional societies, therefore the political process is quite contradictory. Domestic researchers of the modern political process (S. Granovsky, E. Meleshkina, R. Mukhaev, V. Nikonov, A. Salmin, G. Satarov, O. Smolin, M. Urnov and others) note the complexity and ambiguity of its study. So R. Mukhaev identifies seven main features.

The first feature of the political process in Russia is the inseparability of politics and economics, social and personal relations. Politics is not separated from other spheres of life due to the immaturity of the institutions of civil society, which should limit and control it. The lack of formation of civil society is one of the features political development Russia. Under these conditions, the political process is characterized by the pervasiveness of politics, which permeates all spheres of social life. Not a single issue of economic, social, or spiritual development is resolved without the intervention of power structures.

In the conditions of Russia's transition to market economy status differentiation is complemented by socio-economic and class differentiation, which collides with the first. Increasing economic inequality in society, caused by the redistribution of state property through privatization and corporatization, and the entry into force of the institution of private property, form a heterogeneous mass of political interests and the forces expressing them. The former political homogeneity has been destroyed; now it is opposed by the state as an organized force. However, as the state monopoly on property and resources is reduced, the desire of the ruling class to maintain economic and political influence at any cost increases, and therefore the ruling class itself is trying to organize itself and create a party in power.

This leads to the second feature of the political process in Russia - the lack of consensus between the participants in political life. There was no tradition of consensus in Russia, and it could not be rooted in several years of reforms. Another reason for the conflict in the political process lies in the different understanding of the values ​​of freedom and democracy among the emerging political forces, as well as in their unequal opportunities for active participation in the reform process and satisfaction of their own interests.

New political forces representing the interests of the emerging class of entrepreneurs, as well as public sector workers (teachers, doctors, engineers, etc.) had worse starting positions in the transition to a market economy than, for example, employees of the state apparatus, the ruling elite , businessmen of the “shadow economy”. Various conditions the start was shaped by directly opposite aspirations and goals of these political forces. To defend diverse political goals and realize their demands, political forces (parties, movements, pressure groups) use a wide arsenal of means, including illegal ones (corruption, blackmail, forgery, violence, etc.).

The third feature of the political process in Russia is its lack of structure and high degree combination and interchangeability of political roles. The apparent diversity of participants in Russian political life is deceptive, since their real role and political functions are quite limited. The ability of political parties to express the interests of civil society is very conditional. Firstly, because the interests of civil society are just beginning to take shape, and the parties themselves, apart from the leaders and their closest supporters, represent few people. Secondly, modern parties are more like clienteles that unite like-minded people around a politician than a form of connection between government and civil society.

The lack of differentiation and specialization of political roles and functions among subjects and holders of power is due to the Russian political tradition, which consists in the concentration of power and domination in one center, for example, in pre-revolutionary times - with the monarch, and in Soviet times - with the ruling communist party. The slightest weakening of the political dominance of a monopoly ruling body led to conflicts and loss of controllability social processes and ultimately to revolutions.

IN modern conditions the situation of concentration of political dominance in Russia has not been overcome, despite the formal legal declaration of the principle of separation of powers and functions. Only now most political functions are constitutionally concentrated in the hands of the country's president. The retention of such amounts of power in presidential structures is largely the result of the unformed institutions of civil society and the lack of differentiation of interest groups.

The fourth feature of the political process in Russia is expressed in the lack of integration among its participants, which is a consequence of the absence of a unified communication system in society. A vertically organized political process operates through a dialogue between government and society, in which the latter conveys its demands to power structures through an extensive system of representation. However, there was no such system of representation of interests in Russia, since there is no tradition of such dialogue. The lack of formation of civil society institutions did not create an extensive system of transmitting citizens’ demands to power structures. Under Soviet conditions totalitarian regime the only legal channel of communication between government and society was communist party. This form allowed the authorities to control the mentality of the majority of society and purposefully shape them. During the so-called Khrushchev Thaw, the system of representation expanded; it was supplemented by a number of forms of communication that were latent (hidden) in nature. This is how dissident organizations appeared, indirectly representing to the authorities the demands of a certain part of the intelligentsia. During the same period, the process of forming interest groups associated with the “shadow economy” was quite active.

An extensive system of interest representation has not been created even today. And the greatest opportunities here belong to the ruling elite and bureaucracy, which control resources and political influence. The party system in Russia is not yet able to act as an effective channel for transmitting demands from broad social communities to the authorities. This is probably why interest groups reflecting specific interests and demands of a sectoral, regional, and ethnic nature have become the dominant form of political representation. Real differences in the material, cultural, ethnic, social, territorial aspects of groups and communities acquire latent forms of representation.

The fifth feature of the political process in Russia is that it is based on an active political style, consisting in the imposition of innovations on society by the government. The active role of the state both in shaping problems and in integrating the interests of various groups is caused by the cultural, religious, ethnic and political heterogeneity of society. The state carries out this integration of various subcultures of participants in the political process by imposing on them certain values ​​and standards of political activity. Thus, power structures make the behavior of political subjects predictable.

In the interaction between “government and society,” the political initiative belongs to the state, since it concentrates power and resources in its hands. However, the lack of differentiation of political roles and functions of government institutions led to the fact that the decision-making process was anonymous. The principle of “collective responsibility” gave rise to a tradition of irresponsibility of political authorities for the consequences of decisions made. In addition, the lack of structure in the political process led to the emergence of unconstitutional bodies that had the exclusive right to make strategic decisions.

The sixth feature of the Russian political process is the high concentration of political power and resources in the hands of the ruling elite, which forces the counter-elite and the opposition to take shape and act as radical movements rather than political opponents. The acute confrontation between the ruling elite and the counter-elite is a consequence of the cultural and political heterogeneity of the elite itself, different groups which is oriented towards both liberal and socialist values. Ideological confrontation is complemented by the process of crystallization of interests based on economic factors- private property, competition, market, etc. Increasing property inequality deepens the conflict of political interactions. The integration of supporters of the ruling elite and the counter-elite occurs not on a rational, but on an emotional and symbolic basis (sympathy or antipathy for leaders, image, symbols, etc.). The desire of the ruling elite to monopolize control of the political process gives rise to the desire of the opposition to use radical means of struggle in order to force the official government to recognize and legitimize the opposition and take its opinion into account when developing a political course. At the same time, the continuing marginalization of society increases the importance of emotional and symbolic factors of political interaction. Their predominance overshadows adoption and implementation concrete solutions. This explains the low dynamics of the reform process and the weak effectiveness of the political decisions made.

The seventh feature of the political process in Russia is that the total marginalization of post-communist society led to a situation where leaders, in order to remain in power, turned to the help of more developed Western countries. However, concessions in foreign policy in exchange for financial support The ruling regime did not advance the country along the path of reform, but only increased Russia’s financial and economic dependence on Western countries, weakening the national economy. It is clear that Western countries are not eager to provide technological and investment support, since this could create a competitive power in Russia. Realizing this, the leadership of modern Russia began to carry out independent foreign policy oriented, first of all, to the interests of Russian society.

Basic concepts: actors of the political process, macro-level of the political process, methods for studying political processes, micro-level of the political process, features of the political process in Russia, parameters of the political process, political process, political change, structure of the political process, typology of political processes.

According to the current edition Federal Law“On Political Parties”, one of the first stages of creating a party is the adoption by the founding congress of decisions on its creation, on the formation of its regional branches in more than half of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Thus, the law establishes the possibility of creating parties only for federal level with branches in the regions of the country. When discussing the law on parties, experts have repeatedly put forward the idea of ​​allowing the creation of parties not only at the federal level, but also at the regional level. It was assumed that such a decision would lead to a real struggle between parties in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for influence in regional legislative assemblies and the transfer of many fundamental decisions for the country to the level of the constituent entities, and not the federation as a whole. It is quite obvious, experts noted, that today in each specific region of Russia strong and influential local parties can emerge that are extremely weak by federal standards.

However, in this situation, there is a great danger of marginalization of some subjects of the country. It is possible that this was one of the reasons for the refusal to regionalize the Russian party system. Let us consider the regional Duma elections of March 2007 as an example of a political example. The main goal for parties in 2007, it was the unification of elites and victory in momentary elections, which means that the transition of the Russian party system from “cadre parties” to “parties of voters” is not expected. The future belongs to “personnel parties”. New "personnel parties".

The elections to the legislative assemblies of 11 regions of Russia in March 2007 were not entirely correctly assessed. In fact, this is a review of the Russian political field as a whole. A new assessment of voter and party activity after a long period of artificially created calm, called “stabilization.” In the media space, the March elections looked like a battle between power and Mironov’s “socialists.”

Built on the principle of “CPSU without communists,” the party in power is just trying on ideological rhetoric that is unusual for it. Created as a mechanism for increasing controllability (according to the old patterns), by the 2008 presidential elections, United Russia was forced to deviate from the formula of “party supporting the president.”

“EdRo” has finally rightly defined itself as a center-right party. Another question is whether it is perceived this way in society? Something tells me no. "United Russia" in public consciousness still remains “Putin’s party”, its support is a reflection of the support that the president enjoys. This is obvious, at least from the increase in United Russia’s ratings immediately after Putin’s statements during the February press conference.
What will happen to the party after 2008, whether it will have time to position itself as an independent political force, is an open question.

To call an average result of 11 percent success is to say that black is white and vice versa. The communists, who for the first time in a long time were allowed to speak in conditions of the virtual absence of counter-propaganda (with standard propaganda moves for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which cannot be compared with the level of the Social Revolutionaries) took almost 16% and incredible success they don't count it.

The actions of the authorities and the appearance of the “wings” of “United Russia” (strangely forgotten a couple of days after their appearance) caused a fair amount of confusion. Both the right and the left, each from their own bell tower, tried to prove that the Kremlin was either “right” or “lion,” thereby greatly confusing both themselves and the voter.

Both “United Russia” and Mironov’s “Socialist Revolutionaries,” still perceived in society as artificial formations, wittingly or unwittingly marked with their election race the coordinates of the political field, previously leveled by “stabilization.”

The “i”s are dotted. The center-right "United Russia" perfectly set off the right forces, the "Socialist Revolutionaries" played the same role on the left flank. The main participants in the Duma and presidential campaigns are thus placed in their corners of the ring and can prepare for the fight.

An important advantage of United Russia was the promotion of their name, although their main competitors also benefited from scandalous legislative initiatives (such as monetization, auto citizenship, housing and communal services reform, abolition of elections, etc.), for which all the big shots fell on the lower house of parliament, as if the top with the President and did not participate in the legislative process at all.

Conclusion

So, the political process is understood as the dynamic dimension of political life, which consists in the reproduction of the components of the political system of society, as well as in changing its state; political activity of political subjects associated with the struggle for power and influencing power structures.

The political process is considered as one of the social processes, along with economic, ideological, legal, and also as a form of functioning of the political system of society, evolving in time and space. The content of the political process may be different. It may be associated with the development of any development concept, the formation public opinion on an issue affecting the interests of government and society, holding elections, etc. The content of the political process is influenced by the following factors: the degree of separation and balance of legislative, executive and judicial powers; level of centralization (decentralization) of power; interaction of party and government structures directly or indirectly influencing the political decision-making process; ways of making and implementing political decisions; the relationship between the rights and prerogatives of central and local authorities; relationships within the ruling layer.

The party system in Russia is not yet able to act as an effective channel for transmitting demands from broad social communities to the authorities. This is probably why interest groups reflecting specific interests and demands of a sectoral, regional, and ethnic nature have become the dominant form of political representation. Real differences in the material, cultural, ethnic, social, territorial aspects of groups and communities acquire latent forms of representation.

List of used literature

1. Eliseev S.M. Political relations and the modern political process in Russia: Lecture notes. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2015. 204 p.
2. Mukhaev R.T. Theory of politics. M.: International Relations, 2013. 468 p.
3. Political process: main aspects and methods of analysis: Collection educational materials. / Ed. E.Yu. Meleshkina. M.: UNITY, 2014. 360 p.
4. Smolin O.N. Political process in modern Russia. M.: Perspective, 2014. 268 p.
5. Modern Russian politics. / Ed. V. Nikonova. M.: NORM, 2013. 294 p.

The political process in Russia represents a wide range of political interactions between subjects, bearers and institutions of power. They act on the basis of those roles and functions that are set by the cultural system, traditions, confessional environment, mentality of society, characteristics historical development, features of the psychological make-up of ethnic groups, etc. The identified social variables imply a certain interpretation of political roles and functions, markedly different from that accepted in modern democracies. The behavior of government subjects and government institutions in Russia has a different logic and origin.

The first feature of the political process in Russia consists in the indivisibility of politics and economics, social and personal relations. Politics is not sharply separated from other spheres of life due to the immaturity of the institutions of civil society, which should limit and control it. The lack of formation of civil society is one of the features civilizational development Russia. Under these conditions, the political process is characterized by the pervasiveness of politics, which permeates all spheres of social life. Not a single issue of economic, social, or spiritual development is resolved without the intervention of power structures.

In the context of Russia's transition to a multi-structured economy and market, status differentiation is complemented by socio-economic and class differentiation, which collides with the first. Increasing economic inequality in society, caused by the redistribution of state property through privatization and corporatization, and the entry into force of the institution of private property, form a heterogeneous mass of political interests and the forces expressing them. The former political homogeneity has been destroyed; now it is opposed by the state as an organized force. However, as the state’s monopoly on property and resources is reduced, the desire of the ruling class to maintain economic and political influence at any cost increases, and so the ruling class itself is trying to organize itself, to create a party in power.

It follows from this the second feature of the political process in Russia– lack of consensus among its participants regarding the legitimate goals and means of political action. There was no tradition of consensus in Russia, and it could not be rooted in several years of reforms. Another reason for the conflict in the political process lies in the different understanding of the values ​​of freedom and democracy among the emerging political forces, as well as in their unequal opportunities for active participation in the reform process and satisfaction of their own interests.

New political forces representing the interests of the emerging class of entrepreneurs, as well as public sector workers (teachers, doctors, engineers, etc.) had worse starting positions in the transition to a market economy than, for example, employees of the state apparatus, the ruling elite , businessmen of the “shadow economy”. Different starting conditions formed directly opposite aspirations and goals of these political forces. To defend diverse political goals and realize their demands, political forces (parties, movements, pressure groups) use a wide arsenal of means, including illegal ones (corruption, blackmail, forgery, violence, etc.). Even within the ruling class, there is a struggle for property, resources and influence, which in October 1993 resulted in armed confrontation and the dispersal of legislative power by presidential structures. The inevitability of such a confrontation is laid down in the Russian Constitution (1993), in which the functions of legislators are negligible compared to the executive branch of government.

The third feature of the political process in Russia consists in its lack of structure and a high degree of combination and interchangeability of political roles. The apparent diversity of participants in Russian political life is deceptive, since their real role and political functions are quite limited. The ability of political parties to express the interests of civil society is very conditional. Firstly, because the interests of civil society are just beginning to take shape, and the parties themselves, apart from the leaders and their closest supporters, represent few people. Secondly, modern parties are more like clienteles that unite like-minded people around a politician than a form of connection between government and civil society.

The lack of differentiation and specialization of political roles and functions among subjects and holders of power is due to the Russian political tradition, which consists in the concentration of power and domination in one center, for example, in pre-revolutionary times - with the monarch, and in Soviet times - with the ruling communist party. The slightest weakening of the political dominance of a monopoly ruling body led to conflicts, loss of control over social processes and, ultimately, to revolutions.

In modern conditions, the situation of concentration of political dominance in Russia has not been overcome, despite the formal legal declaration of the principle of separation of powers and functions. Only now most political functions are constitutionally concentrated in the hands of the country's president. The retention of such amounts of power in presidential structures is largely the result of the unformed institutions of civil society and the lack of differentiation of interest groups.

The fourth feature of the political process in Russia is expressed in the lack of integration among its participants, which is a consequence of the lack of a unified communication system in society. A vertically organized political process operates through a dialogue between government and society, in which the latter conveys its demands to power structures through an extensive system of representation. However, there was no such system of representation of interests in Russia, since there is no tradition of such dialogue. The lack of formation of civil society institutions did not create an extensive system of transmitting citizens’ demands to power structures. Under the Soviet totalitarian regime, the only legal channel of communication between government and society was the Communist Party. This form allowed the authorities to control the mentality of the majority of society and purposefully shape them. During the so-called Khrushchev Thaw, the system of representation expanded; it was supplemented by a number of forms of communication that are latent (hidden) in nature. This is how dissident organizations appeared, indirectly representing to the authorities the demands of a certain part of the intelligentsia. During the same period, the process of forming interest groups associated with the “shadow economy” was quite active.

An extensive system of interest representation has not been created even today. And the greatest opportunities here belong to the ruling elite and bureaucracy, which control resources and political influence. The party system in Russia is not yet able to act as an effective channel for transmitting demands from broad social communities to power. This is probably why interest groups reflecting specific interests and demands of a sectoral, regional, and ethnic nature have become the dominant form of political representation. Real differences in the material, cultural, ethnic, social, territorial aspects of groups and communities acquire latent forms of representation. The long-term alienation of citizens from power, when it was formed closed and the participation of the masses in politics was forced, could not contribute to the formation of independent political subjects or the development of a culture of harmony between them. In the absence of a developed communication system, it was almost impossible to achieve agreement through dialogue, since the participants in the political process did not imagine each other’s demands. And even if agreement was achieved, it was carried out by coercion, the imposition by the authorities of the values ​​of the subservient political culture on other participants in the political process.

The fifth feature of the political process in Russia is expressed in the fact that it is based on an active political style, which consists in imposing innovations on society from the government. The active role of the state both in the formation of problems and in the forced integration of the interests of various groups is caused by the cultural, religious, ethnic and political heterogeneity of society. The state carries out this integration of various subcultures of participants in the political process by imposing on them certain values ​​and standards of political activity. Thus, power structures make the behavior of political subjects predictable.

In the interaction between government and society, the political initiative belongs to the state, since it concentrates power and resources in its hands. However, the lack of differentiation of political roles and functions of government institutions led to the fact that the decision-making process was anonymous. The principle of “collective responsibility” gave rise to a tradition of irresponsibility of political authorities for the consequences of decisions made. In addition, the unstructured nature of the political process led to the emergence of unconstitutional bodies that had the exclusive right to make strategic decisions. IN Soviet time such an authority was the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, and in modern conditions, for example, the Security Council has this right.

Excessive concentration of political power and resources in the hands of the ruling elite forces the counter-elite and the opposition to take shape and act as revolutionary movements, not political opponents. This is the sixth feature of the Russian political process. The acute confrontation between the ruling elite and the counter-elite is a consequence of the cultural and political heterogeneity of the elite itself, different groups of which are oriented toward both liberal and socialist values. The ideological confrontation is complemented by the process of crystallization of interests based on economic factors - private property, competition, market, etc. Increasing property inequality deepens the conflict of political interactions. However, since the cultural and ideological motivation of political participation still dominates in the conditions of an unformed mature civil society, the integration of supporters of the ruling elite and the counter-elite occurs not on a rational, but on an emotional and symbolic basis (sympathy or antipathy for leaders, image, symbols, etc.). d.). The desire of the ruling elite to monopolize the political process gives rise to the desire of the opposition to use radical means of struggle in order to force the official government to recognize and legitimize the opposition and take its opinion into account when developing a political course. At the same time, the marginalization of society that persists and noticeably increases due to the destruction of habitual social connections and forms of individual and group identification increases the importance of emotional and symbolic factors of political interaction. Their predominance relegates the adoption and implementation of specific decisions to the background. This explains the low dynamics of the reform process and the weak effectiveness of the political decisions made.

The seventh feature of the political process in Russia is that the total marginalization of post-communist society led to a situation where leaders were forced to adhere to clearer views in foreign policy than in domestic policy.

The foreign policy activity of leaders in transitional societies is determined mainly by two circumstances.

Firstly, since these are leaders of the post-communist type (i.e., their political style was formed under the conditions of the monopoly dominance of the Communist Party), they were accustomed to working in conditions of “socio-political unity” of society, when political decisions were simply imposed on society. The transition to a market has given rise to signs of the emergence of social diversity of interests, which requires leaders to create transformation programs that do not rely on the support of any one social group, but take into account the interests of various communities. Offering society such a constructive and realistic program of change, and thereby capable of creating a broad social base for reform, turns out to be the most difficult and so far insurmountable task for leaders of the post-communist type. Hence their obvious desire to find simpler solutions, obvious sources of support, for example, in the form of industrialized countries that have long completed the modernization process.

Secondly, with the social base of reforms within society unformed, leaders, in order to remain in power, turn to the help of those same more developed Western countries. M.S. began his reforms with changes in foreign policy. Gorbachev, proclaiming “new thinking” and “universal human values” as the foundations of his foreign policy. The same logic was followed by B.N. Yeltsin, speaking with the doctrine of “partnership for peace” with Western countries.

However, concessions in foreign policy (even to the detriment of national security, which is reflected in the uncontrolled expansion of the borders of the NATO bloc to the east) in exchange for financial support of the ruling regime do not advance the country along the path of reforms, but only strengthen Russia’s financial and economic dependence on Western countries, weaken the national economy. It is clear that Western countries are not eager to provide technological and investment support, since this could create a competitive power in Russia. And yet, the logic of survival of post-communist leaders in power dictates exactly this or a similar political course.

Polit. psychology is mobile and dynamic element political consciousness, which organizes and determines the subjective images of leaders, state, power that develop in a person (knowing the laws of formation psychological images, one can determine their structure and direction).

If political ideology is systematic, then political psychology is spontaneous. Ideology is formed by the intellectual elite, while political psychology is formed practical way, characterizing those feelings and views of people that they use in everyday life.

Political psychology – internally contradictory phenomenon, which indicates the simultaneous coexistence in the human mind of directly opposite impulses.

consists of several levels: psychophysical (heredity and temperament, demographic and age-sex traits), individual-psychic (personal psyche - will, memory, character), functional-physiological (elements of consciousness characterizing innate traits and inclinations), socio-psychological (feelings characterizing the specifics of a person’s display of his interests and the formation of motives for underground activities). Each of these levels reflects political reality in its own way and forms its own emotional assessments.

Political psychology from a cognitive point of view is limited form of thinking, which is not able to reflect the features of political phenomena hidden from direct observation. Political psychology demonstrates specific ways of interpreting concepts. She attributes various causes to the phenomena she directly perceives, thus eliminating the existing lack of information.

Polit. psychology can create a certain type of actors, those. those actors for whom the emotional factor is system-forming.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Object and subject of political science

The object and subject of political science.. the object of research, the area of ​​phenomena being studied, the subject of research is special.. politics, a form of human behavior..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

All topics in this section:

What unites everyday, technological and scientific-theoretical consciousness?
Fundamental character; Normative character - in political relations there is always a certain element. a stable model that fixes principles and other fundamental human relations within politics. (ex: oby

Applied Political Science
Political analysis: As a type of applied knowledge political analysis primarily focuses on the description and study of the specific situation facing the subject

Basic theoretical interpretations of human rights
The problem of human rights as an independent political problem updated as society developed and the relationships between society, the state and the individual became more complex. For the first time presented

Typology of human rights
In the broadest sense, human rights are divided into negative and positive.

The first of these include those rights and freedoms that are based on preventing the necessary
Major human rights violations

There are regimes that are aimed at limiting rights as fundamental principles in relations between the state and the individual. Such methods include, for example, the introduction of unjustified (age,
Essence of PE

PE is a group of people professionally engaged in activities in the sphere of power and government. It concentrates the highest power and management prerogatives in society, predetermining the paths of e
PE functions

In full accordance with the place it occupies in public life, the political elite performs a number of important tasks and functions.
First of all, its social objectives include ●

PE structure
The structure of the elites is quite complex. Scientists distinguish segments of elites (for example, economic, administrative, military, intellectual, etc.). Scientist Mills identifies 3 layers of elites - the ruling elite (which

The fourth reason: the use of “external enemies” to consolidate society
The mechanism for the transition of strata into the political sphere: 1. Participation in elections;

2. Direct impact on government;
3. Joining various specialties operating in the political sphere

Main stages of partogenesis
The crystallization of party functions, the formation of the structure of parties and the development of their most typical methods of activity in the political system were carried out in a centuries-long process of formation and formation.

The essence and types of party systems
Party systems are a set of stable connections and relationships of parties of various types with each other, as well as with the state and other institutions of power. Party Structural features In the institutional sphere, authoritarianism is distinguished, first of all, by the organizational consolidation of the power of a narrow elite group (or leader). Rivalry of competing groups

Modern theories of democracy
If in the field of theory, the authors of various concepts, emphasizing certain aspects of democracy, constantly polemicize with each other, then in the practical field, a predominance has clearly emerged.

Universal properties of democracy
The specificity and uniqueness of the democratic structure of power are expressed in the presence of universal methods and mechanisms for organizing the political order. In particular, such

Stage of liberalization (departure from totalitarianism) – establishment of a regime of dosed democracy
2). The stage of institutionalization of democracy (development of institutions, solving problems to ensure the interests of influential groups removed from power).

3). Stage of constitutionalization of democracy (us)
Religion

3. ideology is a way of symbolizing political phenomena that allows one to display, express, and protect group interests in the process of struggle for state power.
Political communications

46. ​​Political ideology.
The concept of political ideology: Political ideology is one of the most influential forms of political

The role of political psychology in the political process
The role and nature of the influence of political psychology on political behavior reveals the ways of the sustainable predominance of emotional ideas in the motivation of human behavior. Indicative facts of influence

The structure of political psychology

The first feature is the inseparability of politics and economics, social and personal relations. Politics is not separated from other spheres of life due to the immaturity of the institutions of civil society, which should limit and control it. The lack of formation of civil society is one of the features of the political development of Russia. Under these conditions, the political process is characterized by the pervasiveness of politics, which permeates all spheres of social life. Not a single issue of economic, social, or spiritual development is resolved without the intervention of power structures.

In the conditions of Russia's transition to a market economy, status differentiation collides with socio-economic and class differentiation. Increasing economic inequality in society, caused by the redistribution of state property through privatization and corporatization, and the entry into force of the institution of private property, form a heterogeneous mass of political interests and the forces expressing them. The former political homogeneity has been destroyed; now it is opposed by the state as an organized force. However, as the state's monopoly on property and resources is reduced, the desire of the ruling class to maintain economic and political influence at any cost, to organize itself, and to create a party in power is growing.

This leads to the second feature of the political process in Russia - the lack of consensus among the participants in political life. There was no tradition of consensus in Russia and it was impossible to take root over several years of reforms. Another reason for the conflict in the political process lies in the different understanding of the values ​​of freedom and democracy among the emerging political forces, as well as in the unequal opportunities for their participation in the reform process and satisfaction of their own interests.

New political forces representing the interests of the emerging class of entrepreneurs, as well as public sector workers (teachers, doctors, engineers, etc.), had worse starting positions in the transition to a market economy than, for example, government employees, ruling elite, businessmen of the “shadow” economy. Different starting conditions formed directly opposite aspirations and goals of these political forces. To defend diverse political goals and realize their demands, political forces (parties, movements, pressure groups) use a wide arsenal of means, including illegal ones (corruption, blackmail, forgery, violence).

The third feature of the political process in Russia is its unstructured nature and the high degree of combination and interchangeability of political roles. The apparent diversity of participants in Russian political life is deceptive, since their real role and political functions are quite limited. The ability of political parties to express the interests of civil society is very conditional. Firstly, because the interests of civil society are just beginning to take shape, and the parties themselves, apart from the leaders and their closest supporters, represent few people. Secondly, modern parties are more like clienteles that unite like-minded people around a politician than a form of connection between government and civil society.

The lack of differentiation and specialization of political roles and functions among subjects and holders of power is due to the Russian political tradition, which consists in the concentration of power and domination in one center, for example, in pre-revolutionary times - the monarch, and in Soviet times - the ruling communist party. The slightest weakening of the political dominance of a monopoly ruling body led to conflicts, loss of control over social processes and, ultimately, to revolutions.

In modern conditions, the situation of concentration of political dominance in Russia has not been overcome, despite the formal legal declaration of the principle of separation of powers and functions. Only now most political functions are constitutionally concentrated in the hands of the country's president. The retention of such amounts of power in presidential structures is largely the result of the lack of formation of civil society institutions and the lack of differentiation of interest groups.

The fourth feature of the political process in Russia is expressed in the lack of integration among its participants, which is a consequence of the absence of a unified communication system in society. A vertically organized political process operates through a dialogue between government and society, in which the latter conveys its demands to power structures through an extensive system of representation. However, there was no such system of interest representation in Russia, since there is no tradition of such dialogue. The lack of formation of civil society institutions did not create an extensive system of transmitting citizens' demands to government structures. Under the Soviet totalitarian regime, the only legal channel of communication between government and society was the Communist Party. This form allowed the authorities to control the mentality of the majority of society and purposefully shape them. During the period of the so-called “Khrushchev Thaw,” the system of representation expanded; it was supplemented by a number of forms of communication that were latent (hidden) in nature. This is how dissident organizations appeared, indirectly representing to the authorities the demands of a certain part of the intelligentsia. During the same period, the process of forming interest groups related to the “shadow” economy was quite active.

An extensive system of interest representation has not been created even today. And the greatest opportunities here belong to the ruling elite and bureaucracy, which control resources and political influence. The party system in Russia is not yet able to act as an effective channel for transmitting demands from broad social communities to the authorities. This is probably why interest groups reflecting specific interests and demands of a sectoral, regional, and ethnic nature have become the dominant form of political representation. Real differences in the material, cultural, ethnic, social, territorial aspects of groups and communities acquire latent forms of representation.

The fifth feature of the political process in Russia is that it is based on an active political style, consisting in the imposition of innovations on society by the government. The active role of the state both in the formation of problems and in the integration of the interests of various groups is caused by the cultural, religious, ethnic and political heterogeneity of society. The state carries out this integration of various subcultures of participants in the political process by imposing on them certain values ​​and standards of political activity. Thus, power structures make the behavior of political subjects predictable.

In the interaction “power - society”, the political initiative belongs to the state, since it concentrates power and resources in its hands. However, the lack of differentiation of political roles and functions of government institutions led to the fact that the decision-making process was anonymous. The principle of “collective responsibility” gave rise to a tradition of irresponsibility of political authorities for the consequences of decisions made. In addition, the unstructured nature of the political process led to the emergence of unconstitutional bodies that had the exclusive right to make strategic decisions.

The sixth feature of the Russian political process is the high concentration of political power and resources in the hands of the ruling elite, which forces the counter-elite and the opposition to take shape and act as radical movements rather than political opponents. The acute confrontation between the ruling elite and the counter-elite is a consequence of the cultural and political heterogeneity of the elite itself, different groups of which are oriented towards both liberal and socialist values. The ideological confrontation is complemented by the process of crystallization of interests based on economic factors - private property, competition, market, etc. Increasing property inequality deepens the conflict of political interactions. The integration of supporters of the ruling elite and the counter-elite occurs not on a rational, but on an emotional and symbolic basis (sympathy or antipathy for leaders, image, symbols). The desire of the ruling elite to monopolize control of the political process gives rise to the desire of the opposition to use radical means of struggle in order to force the official government to recognize and legitimize the opposition and take its opinion into account when developing a political course. At the same time, the continuing marginalization of society increases the importance of emotional and symbolic factors of political interaction. Their predominance relegates the adoption and implementation of specific decisions to the background. This explains the low dynamics of the reform process and the weak effectiveness of the political decisions made.

The seventh feature of the political process in Russia is that the total marginalization of post-communist society led to a situation where leaders, in order to remain in power, turned to the help of more developed countries. M. Gorbachev began reforms with changes in foreign policy, proclaiming “new thinking” and “universal values” as the foundations of his foreign policy course. Boris Yeltsin followed the same logic when speaking with the doctrine of “partnership for peace” with Western countries.

However, concessions in foreign policy in exchange for financial support did not advance the country along the path of reform, but only increased Russia’s financial and economic dependence on Western countries, weakening the national economy. It is clear that the West is not seeking to provide technological and investment support, since this could create a competitive power in Russia. Realizing this, the leadership of modern Russia began to pursue an independent foreign policy, focused primarily on the interests of Russian society.