General characteristics of the political system of the Russian Federation. Features of the political process in modern Russia

Page 21

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

Chapter 1. The concept of 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, it is the activity of social subjects in the implementation of political decisions.

The political process is unfolding in a given country within the framework of the political system of society, as well as on a regional and global scale. In society, it is carried out at the state level, in the administrative-territorial regions, in the city and the countryside. 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 of its states 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 execution at the appropriate level, the implementation of political and managerial decisions, their necessary correction, social and other control in the course of practical implementation.

Individuals and social groups within a certain political system are not equally involved in the political process. Some are indifferent to politics, others participate in it from time to time, others are passionate about political struggle. Even among those who play an active role in political events, only a few recklessly seek power.

The following groups can be distinguished according to the degree of increase in the activity of participation in the political process: 1) an apolitical group, 2) voting in elections, 3) 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 an external factor, the totality of economic, political, military-strategic and other realities of an international character. 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, which combines various forms of direct and representative democracy
undemocratic, the internal diversity of which is determined by the presence 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 on the example of modern Russia.

Chapter 1. The concept of political process

The interaction of political subjects regarding state power involves a procedural approach that allows you to explore the causes of the emergence of certain political problems, the process of developing and making political decisions, creating new management structures, i.e. we are talking about political practice, specific management, the exchange of information between the subjects of the political process, and much more. All this is 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, their influence on power structures. The result of the interaction of various subjects is the creation of stable ties 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 this context, we are talking about the dynamic characteristics of politics associated with changes in the behavior and attitudes of subjects about power interests, which unfolds in time and space.

The political process is understood as a 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 sub-processes, as a kind of resultant of actions (actions) of various social and political subjects. The political process acts as a result of the influence of interest groups on the authorities, 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. So, A. Degtyarev considers the political process as “a social macro-process, firstly, characterizing the temporal sequence of integral states of people's communication about power in the space of its legitimate maintenance; secondly, expressing the resultant result of individual and group micro-actions, that is, the aggregate political activity of a given community; thirdly, including ways of interaction between the state and society, institutions and groups, the political system and the social environment, the government and the 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 the strengthening and increasing the efficiency of state power, reforming the state apparatus, strengthening market relations, establishing transparency in the actions of state bodies, parties, public organizations, developing political pluralism and constructive opposition to power.

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

One of the most widespread 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, two principles must be observed.

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 of which political leaders should not determine the rules by which they will play.

The second principle is that “the existing reality, the conflicts that the era gives rise to, should not dictate the process of creating a political system, 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 include the following elements in the structure: subjects, objects, as well as means, methods, resources.

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

The ways of interactions are determined by the types of relations between the actors. There are various options for political interactions: confrontation, neutrality, compromise, union, consensus. This division is based on the principle of correlation of social interests and political positions of the subjects entering into contact.

Confrontation presupposes an open confrontation between political subjects. Neutrality contributes to the temporary exit of the subject 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. Union - closer, perhaps even friendly forms of political interaction, when objectively there is an intersection of interests and some concurrence of positions. Consensus is achieved through agreement on all key positions with almost complete coincidence in the understanding of each of their interests.

Resources can include knowledge, science, technical and financial means, ideology, mass moods, public opinion, etc. The object of the political process is, as a rule, a society consisting of various classes and social groups, as well as individuals. The means include both non-violent, 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, which, as well as political behavior, including political activity and political participation.

Interactions between the ruling group, which performs the functions of governance, and other groups in society that influence the ruling elite, cooperate or compete 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.

There are different approaches to determining 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 for studying political processes on a national scale.

The main approaches should be identified as institutional, behavioral, structural-functional, rational choice theory, discursive and some others.

Representatives of the institutional approach pay the 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 of the principles of other methodological approaches. Institutionalists study the formal legal aspects of public administration, in particular constitutional documents and the implementation of their provisions in practice, the institutional conditions for the civil service, and the institutional dynamics of different regimes.

Behavioralists focus not on political institutions, but on the mechanisms for exercising power. The subject of their analysis is political behavior at the individual and socially aggregated levels. Numerous aspects of the political process related to political behavior, such as leadership, the activities of political parties and interest groups, voting in elections, participation in other forms of political activity, including non-conventional ones (demonstrations, strikes), turned out to be in the field of view of behavioralists. 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. Lasersfeld, G. Lasswell, C. Merriam and others.

Supporters of structural-functional analysis, founded by T. Parsons, represent society as a system that includes stable elements and ways of connecting 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 proceeds 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 the participants choose certain strategies of behavior that are beneficial both to themselves and to other participants. The main representatives of the theory of rational choice are D. Black, E. Downes, M. Olson, V. Riker, G. Simon, G. Tulloch and others.

The discourse approach proceeds from the possibility of studying the political process through communication using verbal and non-verbal components through social dialogue taking place through public institutions between individuals, groups and social institutions. For the analysis of 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: entry 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; exit reaction of the political system in the form of decisions and actions; feedback return to the starting point of balance. This model of the cyclic functioning of the political process was popular in the second half of the 20th century.

Micro-level studies are associated with the names of V. Pareto and A. Bentley. V. Pareto considered the elite, which is opposed by the counter-elites, as well as the people, playing a predominantly passive role, as the subject and driving force of the political process. A. Bentley interprets the dynamics of the political process as a struggle and mutual pressure of social groups in the struggle for state power.

HE. Smolin proposes to use the method of political situational analysis to study the political process. This method involves identifying the characteristics and patterns of historical situations; determination of sets of such characteristics and regularities, 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 to 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 among the transitional societies, so 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 indivisibility of politics and economics, social and personal relations. Politics is not separated from other spheres of life due to the immaturity of civil society institutions, which should limit and control it. The underdevelopment of civil society is one of the features of Russia's political development. Under these conditions, the political process is characterized by the all-pervasive ability of politics, which permeates all spheres of society. Not a single issue of economic, social, spiritual development is resolved without the intervention of power structures.

Under the conditions of Russia's transition to a market economy, status differentiation is supplemented by socio-economic, class differentiation, which collides with the first. The growing economic inequality in society, caused by the redistribution of state property through privatization and corporatization, the entry into its rights 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 is growing, in connection with which the ruling class itself is trying to organize itself, to create a ruling party.

From this follows 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 could not be rooted in a few years of reforms. Another reason for the conflict nature of 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 and technicians, 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 heterogeneous political goals and implement 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 a high degree of overlap and interchangeability of political roles. The apparent diversity of participants in Russian political life is deceptive, since their real role and political functions are rather 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 clientele, uniting like-minded people around a political figure, than a form of communication between the authorities and civil society.

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 functions through a dialogue between the authorities and society, in which the latter conveys its demands to the authorities 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 a dialogue. The lack of formation of civil society institutions did not create an extensive system for translating citizens' demands to power structures. Under the conditions of the Soviet totalitarian regime, the only legal channel for communication between the authorities and society was the Communist Party. This form allowed the authorities to control the mindset of the majority of society, purposefully shape them. During the period of the so-called Khrushchev thaw, the representation system expanded, it was supplemented by a number of forms of communication that had a latent (hidden) character. This is how dissident organizations appeared, indirectly representing the demands of a certain part of the intelligentsia to the authorities. In the same period, the process of formation of interest groups associated with the "shadow economy" was quite active.

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 integration of the interests of various groups is caused by the cultural, religious, ethnic and political heterogeneity of society. This integration of various subcultures of participants in the political process is carried out by the state by imposing on them certain values and standards of political activity. Thus, power structures make the behavior of political subjects predictable.

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 sharp confrontation between the ruling elite and the counter-elite is a consequence of the cultural and political heterogeneity of the elite itself, the various groups of which are guided by both liberal and socialist values. The ideological confrontation is supplemented by the process of crystallization of interests based on economic factors - private property, competition, the market, etc. Increasing property inequality deepens the conflict of political interactions. The integration of supporters of the ruling elite and the counter-elite takes place not on a rational basis, but on an emotional and symbolic basis (sympathy or antipathy for leaders, image, symbols, etc.). The desire of the ruling elite to monopoly control the political process gives rise to the desire of the opposition to use radical means of struggle in order to force the official authorities to recognize and legitimize the opposition and take into account its opinion 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 pushes the adoption and implementation of specific decisions into the background. This explains the low dynamics of the reform process and the weak effectiveness of political decisions.

The seventh feature of the political process in Russia is that the total marginalization of the post-communist society led to a situation where the leaders, in order to stay in power, turned to the help of more developed Western countries. However, concessions in foreign policy in exchange for financial support from the ruling regime did not advance the country along the path of reforms, but only increased Russia's financial and economic dependence on Western countries, weakening the national economy. It is quite obvious that Western countries do not seek to provide technological and investment support, since this can create a competitive power in the face of Russia. Realizing this, the leadership of modern Russia began to pursue an independent foreign policy, focused primarily on the interests of Russian society.

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

According to the current version of the Federal Law "On Political Parties", one of the first stages in the creation of 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 subjects of the Russian Federation. Thus, the law establishes the possibility of creating parties only at the federal level with branches in the subjects of the country. When discussing the law on political parties, experts repeatedly put forward the idea of allowing parties to be created 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 of parties in the subjects 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 subjects, and not the federation as a whole. It is quite obvious, experts noted, that today strong and influential local parties, which are extremely weak by federal standards, may emerge in each specific region of Russia.

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's consider the March 2007 regional Duma elections as an example of a political example. The main goal for the parties in 2007 was to unite the elites and win the 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 "cadre parties". New "cadre parties".

The elections to the legislative assemblies of 11 regions of Russia in March 2007 were not quite correctly assessed. In fact, this is a review of the political field of Russia as a whole. A new assessment of voter and party activity after a long period of artificially created lull, referred to as "stabilization". In the media space, the March elections looked like a clash between the authorities and Mironov's "socialists".

Built on the principle of "CPSU without communists," the ruling party 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 election, United Russia is forced to move away from the formula of the "party of support for the president."

"EdRo", finally, fairly self-determined as a center-right party. Another question is whether it is perceived as such in society? Something tells me not. "United Russia" in the public mind is still "Putin's party", its support is a reflection of the support enjoyed by the president. This is obvious, if only by the growth of the ER rating 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 11 percent average a 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 the absence of counter-propaganda (with the standard propaganda moves for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which cannot be compared with the level of the “Socialist-Revolutionaries”) took almost 16% and do not consider this an incredible success.

The actions of the authorities and the appearance of the “wings” of United Russia (strangely forgotten a couple of days after the appearance) brought a fair amount of confusion. Both the right and the left, each from its own belfry, tried to prove that the Kremlin was either "right" or "lion", which pretty much confused themselves and the voters.

Both United Russia and Mironov's Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are still perceived in society as artificial formations, voluntarily or involuntarily marked with their election race the coordinates of the political field, previously leveled by "stabilization".

The dots over the "and" are placed. The center-right "ER" perfectly shaded 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 a fight.

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

Conclusion

So, the political process is understood as a 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 concept of development, the formation of public opinion on a problem that affects the interests of the authorities and society, the holding of elections, etc. The content of the political process is influenced by the following factors: the degree of separation and balance of the legislative, executive and judicial powers; the level of centralization (decentralization) of power; interaction of party and state structures directly or indirectly influencing the process of political decision-making; ways of making and implementing political decisions; correlation of rights and prerogatives of central and local authorities; relationships within the ruling class.

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 have become the dominant form of political representation, reflecting specific interests and requirements of a sectoral, regional, and ethnic nature. Real differences in the material, cultural, ethnic, social, territorial aspects of groups and communities acquire latent forms of representation.

List of used literature

Eliseev S.M. Political Relations and the Modern Political Process in Russia: Lecture Notes. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2015. 204p.
Mukhaev R.T. Theory of politics. M.: International relations, 2013. 468s.
The political process: main aspects and methods of analysis: Collection of educational materials. / Ed. E.Yu. Meleshkina. M.: UNITI, 2014. 360p.
Smolin O.N. Political process in modern Russia. M.: Perspektiva, 2014. 268p.
Modern Russian politics. / Ed. V. Nikonov. M.: NORMA, 2013. 294p.

Which reflects the relationship of power and society, the level of political freedom and the nature of political life in the country.

In many ways, these characteristics are due to specific traditions, culture, historical conditions for the development of the state, so we can say that each country has its own unique political regime. However, many regimes in different countries show similarities.

In the scientific literature there are two types of politics:

democratic;
antidemocratic.

Signs of a democratic regime:

the rule of law;
separation of powers;
the existence of real political and social rights and freedoms of citizens;
election of public authorities;
existence of opposition and pluralism.

Signs of an anti-democratic regime:

domination of lawlessness and terror;
lack of political pluralism;
absence of opposition parties;

The anti-democratic regime is divided into totalitarian and authoritarian. Therefore, we will consider the characteristics of three political regimes: totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic.

Democratic regime based on the principles of equality and freedom; The main source of power here is the people. At authoritarian regime political power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or a group of people, but outside the sphere of politics, relative freedom remains. At totalitarian regime the government strictly controls all spheres of society.

Typology of political regimes:

Characteristics of political regimes

Democratic regime(from the Greek demokratia - democracy) is based on the recognition of the people as the main source of power, on the principles of equality and freedom. The features of democracy are:

electivity - there is an election of citizens to the bodies of state power by universal, equal and direct elections;
separation of powers - power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches, independent of each other;
civil society - citizens can influence the authorities with the help of a developed network of voluntary public organizations;
equality - all have equal civil and political
rights and freedoms, as well as guarantees for their protection;
pluralism- respect for other people's opinions and ideologies, including oppositional ones, prevails, full transparency and freedom of the press from censorship are ensured;
agreement - political and other social relations are aimed at finding a compromise, and not at a violent solution to the problem; All conflicts are resolved by legal means.

Democracy is direct and representative. At direct democracy decisions are made directly by all citizens who have the right to vote. Direct democracy was, for example, in Athens, in the Novgorod Republic, where people, gathering in the square, made a common decision on every problem. Now direct democracy is implemented, as a rule, in the form of a referendum - a popular vote on draft laws and important issues of national importance. For example, the current Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by referendum on December 12, 1993.

In a large area, direct democracy is too difficult to implement. Therefore, government decisions are made by special elected institutions. Such a democracy is called representative, since the elected body (for example, the State Duma) is represented by the people who elected it.

Authoritarian regime(from the Greek autocritas - power) occurs when power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or group of people. Usually authoritarianism is combined with dictatorship. Political opposition is impossible under authoritarianism, but in non-political spheres, for example, in the economy, culture or private life, individual autonomy and relative freedom are preserved.

Totalitarian regime(from lat. totalis - the whole, whole) occurs when all spheres of society are controlled by the authorities. Power under a totalitarian regime is monopolized (by a party, leader, dictator), a single ideology is obligatory for all citizens. The absence of any dissent is ensured by a powerful apparatus of supervision and control, police repressions, and acts of intimidation. The totalitarian regime forms a non-initiative personality prone to submission.

Totalitarian political regime

Totalitarian political regime- this is the regime of "all-consuming domination", which infinitely interferes in the life of citizens, including all their activities in the scope of its control and coercive regulation.

Signs of a totalitarian political regime:

1. Availabilitythe only mass party led by a charismatic leader, as well as the actual merger of party and state structures. This is a kind of “-”, where the central party apparatus occupies the first place in the power hierarchy, and the state acts as a means of implementing the party program;

2. Monopolizationand centralization of power when such political values as submission and loyalty to the "party-state" are primary in comparison with material, religious, aesthetic values in motivation and evaluation of human actions. Within the framework of this regime, the line between political and non-political spheres of life (“the country as a single camp”) disappears. All life activities, including the level of private, personal life, are strictly regulated. The formation of authorities at all levels is carried out through closed channels, bureaucratically;

3. "Unanimity"official ideology which, through massive and targeted indoctrination (media, education, propaganda) is imposed on society as the only true, true way of thinking. At the same time, the emphasis is not on individual, but on “cathedral” values (state, race, nation, class, clan). The spiritual atmosphere of the society is distinguished by fanatical intolerance towards dissent and "other action" on the principle of "who is not with us is against us";

4. Systemphysical and psychological terror, the regime of a police state, where the principle prevails as a basic "legal" principle: "Only what is ordered by the authorities is allowed, everything else is prohibited."

Totalitarian regimes traditionally include communist and fascist.

Authoritarian political regime

The main features of an authoritarian regime:

1. INpower is unlimited, beyond the control of citizens character and concentrated in the hands of one person or group of people. It can be a tyrant, a military junta, a monarch, etc.;

2. Support(potential or real) for strength. An authoritarian regime may not resort to mass repression and may even be popular among the general population. However, in principle, he can afford any actions in relation to citizens in order to force them into obedience;

3. Monopolization of power and politics, prevention of political opposition, independent legal political activity. This circumstance does not exclude the existence of a limited number of parties, trade unions and some other organizations, but their activities are strictly regulated and controlled by the authorities;

4. Pthe replenishment of leading personnel is carried out by co-optation, and not by pre-election competitive struggle; there are no constitutional mechanisms for succession and transfer of power. Changes of power often occur through military coups and violence;

5. ABOUTrenunciation of total control over society, non-intervention or limited intervention in non-political spheres, and, above all, in the economy. The government deals primarily with issues of ensuring its own security, public order, defense and foreign policy, although it can also influence the strategy of economic development, pursue an active social policy without destroying the mechanisms of market self-regulation.

Authoritarian regimes can be divided into rigidly authoritarian, moderate and liberal. There are also types such as "populist authoritarianism", based on equalization oriented masses, and also "national patriotic", in which the national idea is used by the authorities to create either a totalitarian or a democratic society, etc.

Authoritarian regimes include:

absolute and dualistic monarchies;
military dictatorships, or regimes with military rule;
theocracy;
personal tyranny.

Democratic political regime

Democratic regime is a regime in which power is exercised by a freely expressing majority. Democracy in Greek means literally "rule of the people" or "rule by the people."

Basic principles of the democratic regime of power:

1. Folksovereignty, i.e. The people are the primary holder of power. All power comes from the people and is delegated to them. This principle does not involve making political decisions directly by the people, as, for example, in a referendum. It only assumes that all holders of state power received their power functions thanks to the people, i.e. directly through elections (deputies of parliament or the president) or indirectly through representatives chosen by the people (a government formed and subordinated to parliament);

2. Free elections representatives of the authorities, who presuppose the existence of at least three conditions: the freedom to nominate candidates as a consequence of the freedom to form and function; freedom of suffrage, i.e. universal and equal suffrage on the principle of "one person - one vote"; freedom of voting, perceived as a means of secret voting and equality for all in obtaining information and the opportunity to carry out propaganda during the election campaign;

3. Subordination of the minority to the majority with strict observance of the rights of the minority. The main and natural duty of the majority in a democracy is respect for the opposition, its right to free criticism and the right to change, following the results of new elections, the former majority in power;

4. Implementationseparation of powers. The three branches of power - legislative, executive and judicial - have such powers and such practice that the two "corners" of this kind of "triangle" can, if necessary, block the undemocratic actions of the third "corner" that are contrary to the interests of the nation. The absence of a monopoly on power and the pluralistic nature of all political institutions is a necessary condition for democracy;

5. Constitutionalismand the rule of law in all spheres of life. The law prevails regardless of the person, everyone is equal before the law. Hence the "frigidity", "coldness" of democracy, i.e. she is rational. Legal principle of democracy: “Everything that is not prohibited by law,- permitted."

Democracies include:

presidential republics;
parliamentary republics;
parliamentary monarchies.

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

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

The absence or immaturity of certain prerequisites for civilizational development (for example, the lack of social identification of individuals, the lack of a developed institution of private property) led to the use of the mechanism of inorganic changes in social life. The central place in it is occupied by political will, strong power structures, primarily the state and its leader, political and ideological methods of influencing the individual, coercion, the values of equalization and patriarchal collectivism. The natural-historical factors of evolution (economic interest, inequality, competition, market, commodity-money relations, private property) cannot yet be used to the full extent.

Under such a mechanism of evolution, social interests are not naturally structured on the basis of the inequality of talents and abilities, which is fixed in the possession by each individual of a different amount of resources and statuses, but are set and determined by power. The basis for obtaining rights and statuses by an individual was entry into power structures or proximity to them. This was the initial principle of the status differentiation of society through the granting of rights to various groups and the definition of their obligations to the state. This is how society was differentiated into estates in pre-revolutionary Russia, similarly, groups of state-dependent workers were distinguished in the Soviet era (for example, workers in the military-industrial complex had greater privileges than agrarians, etc.). In statist systems, in which civil society is underdeveloped, the state is the only force that ensures the integrity of the social organism. For a long time in Russia, the state connected workers not only with the means of production (“attributing” the worker to a factory, collective farm), since it was a monopoly owner, but also connected them into a single community through belonging to the state.

The ability to create a type of state-dependent worker, to establish forms of social integration of individuals, was largely determined by developed vertical ties (“state - individual”) and practically weak horizontal ties (“individual - group - social community”). The state had the opportunity to form and determine the content of the needs of the population, since it had a monopoly on the distribution of the produced surplus product. The limited amount of surplus product produced forced the authorities to distribute it equally among the ruled and in accordance with the status and rank among the rulers. The political leadership was dealing with an undifferentiated society whose interest groups were not formed and were not recognized. This situation led to the absence of structured political forces (parties, interest groups) that could really represent and protect the interests of social groups and communities. Under these conditions, the power structures themselves expressed the group interests of the managers of various departments and the political leadership.

Consequently, the political process in Russia until the early 90s. took the form of a vertically organized interaction between the authorities (the state) and society, representing the non-segmented integrity of state-dependent workers. The interaction "power - masses" was by its nature one-sided, since all political initiatives descended from above.

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

Hence follows second feature political process in Russia - lack of consensus between its participants regarding the legalized goals and means of political action. There was no tradition of consensus in Russia, and it could not be rooted in a few years of reforms. Another reason for the conflict nature of 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 employees (teachers, doctors, engineers and technicians, 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 sometimes formed directly opposite aspirations and goals of these political forces. For example, an important requirement of entrepreneurs is to reduce income tax, while for public sector employees, on the contrary, its increase is an important condition for survival in a market economy. To defend heterogeneous political goals and implement 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 an armed confrontation and the dispersal of the legislative power by the presidential structures. The inevitability of such a confrontation is laid down in the Constitution of Russia (1993), in which the functions of legislators are negligible in comparison With the executive branch of government. Thus, the parliament's ability to control the activities of the government is very limited, and in the event of a vote of no confidence, the parliament risks being dissolved by the president.

Third feature political process V Russia is in it unstructured and a high degree of overlap and interchangeability of political roles. The apparent diversity of participants in Russian political life is deceptive, since their real role and political functions are rather limited. Take, for example, floorAndTAndCheWithkie party, of which there are about sixty in the country. Their ability 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 clientele, uniting like-minded people around a political figure, than a form of communication between the authorities and civil society.

The lack of differentiation and specialization of political roles and functions among the subjects and holders of power is due to the Russian political tradition, which consists in the concentration of power, dominance 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. Thus, at one time the February bourgeois revolution of 1917 meant a radical decentralization of political functions previously concentrated in the monarch, which led to a deepening economic and political crisis in the country and turned into the Socialist Revolution of October 1917. The dominant role of political factors, in particular a strong state, in the mechanism of evolution of Russian society is a civilizational feature due to the delayed nature of its development. Naturally, the monopoly on power of one political force, combining various functions (legislative, executive, judicial), limited the emergence of independent participants in the political process. Although in Soviet times, in addition to the communist party, there were other subjects of political life (the state, trade unions, public organizations, such as the Komsomol, DOSAAF, etc.), but all of them did not have independent political functions, but implemented the guidelines and goals of the monopoly ruling party .

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 the majority of political functions are constitutionally concentrated in the hands of the president of the country. Preservation of such volumes of power in presidential structures is largely the result of the lack of formation of the institutions of civil society, the lack of differentiation of interest groups. This gives the political leadership a free hand in determining the strategy and tactics of social change, allows you to create rigid power structures with a high degree of overlap and interchangeability of roles. Such a combination and interchangeability of roles is found in the status of the president, who performs not only representative, but also executive functions, and also has legislative powers. All this leads to the fact that the country lives according to the decrees of the president, who, according to the constitution, is the head of the executive branch.

Fourth Feature political process in Russia is expressed in 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 functions through a dialogue between the authorities and society, in which the latter conveys its demands to the authorities 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 a dialogue. The lack of formation of civil society institutions did not create an extensive system for translating the demands of citizens to power structures. Under the conditions of the Soviet totalitarian regime, the only legal channel for communication between the authorities and society was the Communist Party. This form allowed the authorities to control the mindset of the majority of society, 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 have a latent (hidden) character. This is how dissident organizations appeared, indirectly representing the demands of a certain part of the intelligentsia to the authorities. In the same period, the process of formation of interest groups associated with the "shadow economy" was quite active.

An extensive system of representation of interests has not been created even today. And the ruling elite and the bureaucracy, which controls resources and political influence, have the greatest opportunities here. 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 have become the dominant form of political representation, reflecting specific interests and requirements of a sectoral, regional, and ethnic nature. 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 behind closed doors, and the participation of the masses in politics was forced, could not contribute to the formation of independent political subjects, the development of a culture of harmony between them. In the absence of a developed communication system, it was practically impossible to reach an agreement through dialogue, since the participants in the political process did not imagine each other's demands. And even if consent was achieved, then it was carried out by coercion, by the imposition by the authorities on other participants in the political process of the values of a subservient political culture.

It is quite natural that the predominant forms of representation of interests have become precisely latent(hidden) forms: pressure groups, clienteles, etc. They performed functionally specialized roles, representing the specific interests of groups in power structures. Of course, the possibilities of influencing the authorities are not the same for various interested groups. Typically, the degree of influence on the government is determined by the internal cohesion of the interest group and the amount of resources that it controls. In this regard, the most powerful interest groups are the energy (famous "Gazprom"), banking, agricultural, industrial, military, and administrative lobbies.

Fifth Feature political process in Russia is expressed in the fact that it is based on active politicalstyle, consisting in the imposition of innovations on the part of the government by the society. 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 cultural, religious, ethnic and political heterogeneity of society. This integration of various subcultures of participants in the political process is carried out by the state 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 decision-making process was anonymous . The principle of "collective responsibility" gave rise to tradition of irresponsibility political power for the consequences of decisions. In addition, the unstructured political process led to the emergence unconstitutional bodies who owned the exclusive right to make strategic decisions. In Soviet times, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU was such an authoritative body, but in modern conditions this right has turned out to be with the Security Council. An interesting detail is that the Security Council includes the heads of both the executive and And legislative power. This circumstance indicates that the declared principle of separation of powers is not observed in practice. The composition of the Security Council makes it possible to single out another feature that characterizes the Russian political process: it is dominated, to use the terminology L. Paya, «. political cliques » - presidential, governmental, parliamentary. Proximity to the president, who concentrates a significant amount of power, allows "cliques" (small groups) to have special opportunities to use power.

Excessive concentration of political power and resources in the hands of the ruling elite makes counter-eliteAndopposition form and act as revolutionary movements,not political opponents. This is sixth especially stu Russian political process. Acute confrontation between the ruling elite And The counter-elite is a consequence of the cultural and political heterogeneity of the elite itself, the various groups of which are oriented towards both liberal and socialist values. The ideological confrontation is supplemented by the process of crystallization of interests based on economic factors - private property, competition, the 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 takes place not on a rational, but on an emotional and symbolic basis (sympathy or antipathy for leaders, image, symbolism and etc.). The desire of the ruling elite to monopoly control the political process gives rise to the desire of the opposition to use radical means of struggle in order to force the official government recognize And legitimizirooppose and to take its views into account in policy-making. At the same time, the marginalization of society, which persists and noticeably intensifies due to the destruction of habitual social ties and forms of individual and group identification, increases the importance of emotional and symbolic factors of political interaction. Their predominance pushes the adoption and implementation of specific decisions into the background. This explains the low dynamics of the reform process and the weak effectiveness of the political decisions being made.

The total marginalization of the post-communist society, which was caused by the destruction of the usual forms of social ties and way of life that developed on the political and ideological mechanisms of evolution (the predominance of a common basic idea-goal, indoctrination of the population, total control over the individual, coercion, etc.), and also the absence of civil society institutions led to a situation where leaders were forced to adhere to clearer views in the external politics than domestic. This amounts to seventh feature political process in Russia.

The foreign policy activity of leaders in transitional societies is mainly due to 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 domination of the communist party), insofar as they are accustomed to working in conditions of “socio-political unity” of society, when political decisions were simply imposed on society. The transition to the market has given rise to signs of the emergence of social diversity of interests, which requires leaders to create programs of transformation that do not rely on the support of any one social group, but take into account the interests of various communities. Offering the society such a constructive and realistic program of reforms, which would thereby create a broad social base for reforms, is the most difficult and yet 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 process of modernization.

Secondly, with the unformed social base for reforms within society, leaders, in order to remain in power, turn to the help of all the same more developed Western countries. Started reforms with changes in foreign policy M.WITH. Gorbachev, proclaiming "new thinking" and "universal values" as the foundations of its foreign policy. The same logic follows B.H.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 was reflected in the uncontrolled expansion of the borders of the NATO bloc to the east, almost close to Russia) in exchange for financial support from the ruling regime do not move the country along the path of reforms, but only increase financial and economic dependence. Russia from Western countries, weaken the national economy. It is quite obvious that Western countries do not seek to provide technological and investment support, since this can create a competitive power in the face of Russia. And yet, the logic of survival of post-communist leaders in power dictates exactly this or a similar political course.

Political activity is a specific type of human activity. It is, as already noted, a set of actions of individuals and their various communities associated with the realization of interests regarding the conquest, exercise, retention of political power.

Political action is the voluntary intervention or non-intervention of an individual or group of people in relations of political power and subordination. Political activity takes place not only when certain actions are performed, but also when there is inactivity, refraining from action. This is so because in political life, not only the performance of certain actions, but also the failure to perform actions have specific consequences. Absenteeism, that is, evasion of action, non-obstruction of events in politics, is an action.

The specific manifestations of political activity are very diverse: revolutions, uprisings, referendums, election campaigns, rallies, demonstrations, marches, strikes, coups d'etat, the development of programs, platforms, etc.

The driving force behind political action or abstention from action is ultimately the economic interests of classes, social strata, and groups. In politics, they ultimately focus on the need to rule. But in order to become a factor determining activity, the need must be transformed into a goal, which is an ideal model of the desired future. The form of its expression is the political idea” (Andreev S. S. Political consciousness and political behavior// Socio-political magazine. - 1992. - No. 8. - P. 16).

Ideas express the goals of political action. “The clarity of the goal (its understanding) largely depends on what level of political consciousness determines political behavior. Theoretical - provides classes with goal setting, gives a clearly visible goal; ordinary, - at best, provides an opportunity to be guided by common sense ”(Ibid.). The more the subject of political action has theoretical consciousness, the more purposeful his actions are. Subjects possessing such consciousness, as a rule, act consciously, and not possessing - spontaneously. However, in reality, neither the consciousness of the actions of some, nor the spontaneity of the actions of others in most cases do not manifest themselves in their pure form. Due to the contradictory interests of the subjects of political actions, there often arises a discrepancy between their immediate and long-term goals. Because of this, conscious activity often produces unforeseen, essentially spontaneous results; at the same time, some actions, having begun spontaneously, at a certain stage become conscious.

As a rule, political activity is carried out on the basis of a system of ideas expressed in a particular ideology. The degree of development of ideologies varies, however, as many researchers rightly point out, political action is always an ideologically oriented action. Results that meet the needs of the normal functioning and development of society can be produced by political activity based on genuinely scientific theories. However, a theory that has received reliable evidence is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for effective political action. For successful political action, it is not enough to have a scientific theory. This requires a creative application of the theory, taking into account the specifics of a particular situation (see: Sanisteban L. S. Fundamentals of political science. - M., 1992. - P. 49). Political actions, as already noted, are very diverse. Their typology helps to understand the variety of political actions. Types of political activity can be distinguished on the basis of different criteria.

Political activity differs in the scale of its subjects. This approach distinguishes, firstly, the political activity of large social communities of people (classes, social strata, nations, peoples) and their political organizations (states, parties, etc.), and secondly, the political activity of small social communities ( pressure groups, support groups, etc.).

Political activity is also subdivided into theoretical and practical, which, in turn, can be subdivided into types of lesser generality.

Noteworthy is the typology of political activity proposed by L. S. Sanisteban. He subdivides political actions into positive and negative, rational and irrational, inertial and creative, spontaneous and organized (see: Sanisteban L.S. Fundamentals of political science. - M., 1992. - S.51-55).

According to L. S. Sanisteban, positive political actions are those that consist in “doing something” in order to achieve a certain goal, negative ones are those that are aimed at “stop doing something”, in order to allow it to happen. certain events.

L. S. Sanisteban believes that the other two types of political action are rational and irrational.

Rational political action takes place when its subject “has a clear idea of the goals that he intends to achieve, knows methods adequate to these goals, is able to effectively apply them, is able to combine his different goals, establishing a system of priorities, and can also review and make changes. into your strategy if it does not lead to the expected results” (Ibid. - pp. 51-52).

Together with the features indicated by L. S. Sanisteban, rational political action, as practice shows, characterizes the ability of its subject to mobilize human, material and other resources to achieve the goal, its ability to adapt to emerging new political realities, to respond in a timely manner to new requirements.

Irrational, political action is characterized, says L. S. Sanisteban, by the inability of its subject to "correctly link means to ends", a blind attitude to the "stubborn facts" of reality, his attempts to consider real political reality "in accordance with abstract schemes that have nothing in common or almost nothing to do with this reality” (Ibid. - p. 52).

Rational and irrational political actions in reality in a "pure" form are very rare. Rational and irrational in political actions, as a rule, "get along" side by side, and in various combinations. However, in each specific political action, the rational or irrational moment prevails. This allows in general to speak of rational or irrational political action.

If political action, says L. S. Sanisteban, is considered from another side, then it can act as inertial and creative. Within the framework of inertial political action, its subject is limited to the reproduction of existing forms of behavior. This action is inherently conservative. Its purpose is to preserve and reproduce the existing political system. In an effort to preserve the existing political relations, institutions and institutions, the subjects of inertial political actions stubbornly resist changes (see: Ibid. - p. 52).

L. S. Sanisteban does not define creative action. However, in general, by such an action, he understands such an action that is aimed at making changes to existing political systems, and creating fundamentally new, more advanced political institutions and institutions.

Together with the indicated types of political activity, according to L. S. Sanisteban, spontaneous and organized actions are also found. We must also agree with this statement. In reality, the subjects of political activity act both spontaneously and in an organized manner. At the same time, well-organized political action, as already noted, sometimes develops into a spontaneous one, and a spontaneous one into an organized one. One cannot agree with Sanisteban that "a relatively high degree of organization" characterizes the actions of only the dominant social stratum.

The social stratum exercising political dominance, having at its disposal a numerous administrative apparatus, organs of violence, and the mass media, certainly has much greater opportunities for carrying out organized political actions. In many cases this is realized in practice, but not always. Political actions of a high degree of organization, as reality testifies, are capable of performing) and social strata, groups, other communities of people that oppose the dominant social stratum.

The variety of political actions is not exhausted by the types indicated. Exploring political activity, it makes sense to single out a number of its other types. In particular, when analyzing political actions, it is advisable to single out such types of them as constructive, constructive and destructive actions. Political actions can be spontaneous, sporadic. Innovative political actions are characterized by specific features, etc.

Singling out one or another of these types of political activity, it should be borne in mind that in reality they practically do not manifest themselves in a “pure” form. Each of the described types of political activity is closely related to others.

1. The formation of a political ideology is always carried out purposefully and, as a rule, by a special group of people (“ideologists”).

2. In addition, each ideology has its own organization, its own type of propaganda and other forms of ideological influence on the masses.

3. Political ideology is fixed in the form of certain socio-political theories, doctrines, concepts, which become a concrete embodiment of the ideological and theoretical level of political consciousness.

4. For the theoretical substantiation of ideology, scientific analysis of political reality is of great importance, which gives an objective, unbiased approach to understanding real political processes and phenomena.

5. A truly scientific analysis of politics contributes to the elucidation of the objective causes of political events, the development of ways to regulate political interests in order to gradually and systematically harmonize them.

The ideological and theoretical level of political consciousness plays a mobilizing function, contributes to the consolidation of people's activities, gives it a certain direction. It is at this level that forecasts of the political development of society are developed.

Ideology, as already noted, is a systematized, ordered set of ideals, views, assessments, values, theories, concepts, goals, which expresses the interests of certain large social groups, classes and other political subjects. Ideology as a level of social consciousness reflects the worldview, mindset and life positions of its bearers. Political ideology reflects a set of views (etc.), but in relation to politics and power. Around the 17th century active formation of political ideologies begins. Political ideology is traditionally institutionally formed in the relevant political groupings, unions, parties, movements. However, this relationship is not unambiguous and frozen, because all these associations in the course of their evolution can change their ideology.

A political (ideological and political) doctrine is a system of views that determine the directions and goals of action in the specific historical conditions of a given era. This is a kind of expression of ideology in the language of a particular policy. The political doctrine in society performs a number of specific functions: agitation and propaganda, integration and mobilization, directive, cultural and educational, etc.

A political program is a doctrine applied in a specific situation, i.e. this is a presentation and concretization of the political doctrine, the development of its practical implementation in specific historical conditions.

The ideological and political concept is essentially a system of views, positions that determines the directions and goals of action in specific conditions on specific problems. They suggest the most personalized approach and a limited scope of distribution.

Despite the huge variety of modern ideological and political doctrines and concepts, they lend themselves to a certain systematization in accordance with their ideological foundations.

Politics and power

The term politics in translation from Greek, as already noted, means the art of government, state or public affairs.

However, the etymology of this word does not reveal its essence. In fact, in our time, one can speak of politics in the broad sense of the word as a social phenomenon and in the narrow sense as a theoretical substantiation of the real activity of one or another large social group, i.e. as "practical politics". For political science, the main thing is the understanding of politics as a social phenomenon.

Starting to consider any science, usually begin with its fundamental concepts. So, if for philosophy it is matter and consciousness, for political economy it is a mode of production, then for political science these are politics and power. The definition of fundamental concepts presents a certain difficulty, because. they cannot be defined in terms of other concepts of the given science. Politics, being an extremely complex phenomenon, has a huge impact on the fate of millions of people. Albert Einstein once even remarked that "politics is much more complicated than physics." It integrates various aspects of public life, but is not limited to any of them.

In addition, any theory (Marxist-Leninist or bourgeois) is international, universal in its content, in its essence for all countries and peoples expressing this or that ideology.

Nor can it be "supranational". It is international in its deep content, principles and goals, and national in form, because the political struggle is waged, first of all, for the resolution of social class contradictions within the national borders of states. When conducting a national policy, it is necessary to take into account its international content.

Mastering the dialectics of theory and politics is a decisive condition for the successful implementation of politics in specific historical conditions. An underestimation of theory, a nihilistic attitude towards it can ultimately lead to a correct political course and lead to serious negative consequences and errors in politics, in specific solutions to certain problems. Theory itself cannot change the world, but it can indicate the ways and guidelines for changing it. Belief in the omnipotence and omnipotence of the latter creates the possibility for the appearance of the opinion that politics can do everything or almost everything. Such judgments are called "impromptu politics". In essence, all manifestations of subjectivism and voluntarism at any level of leadership are nothing but improvisation in politics, often with verbal recognition of political theory. No less dangerous is the other extreme—the overestimation of theory, its absolutization. Theory cannot know everything in advance, even collective thought cannot predict all the details of future events.

No matter how correctly the political line is outlined, its successful implementation depends on how it will be put into practice, i.e. from the art of political leadership.

The very concept of power can be interpreted very broadly in its meaning. This is the power of parents over children, and state power, and power over nature, etc. Power always assumes the existence of interdependence, has a universal character, which determines its supremacy over all other regulators of social life. In its essence, it can be inherent only in a social subject. Power relations are a natural and necessary sphere of social relations. Power is a natural function of any human community, ensuring its unity and the possibility of functioning.

In the broadest sense, power is the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to exert a decisive influence on the behavior, activities of people with the help of any means (authority, law, violence, etc.).

With the complication of the structure of society and the emergence of opposing social interests, power becomes an expression of the interests of one or more social groups. The struggle for power begins, i.e. struggle for the dominance of their social interests and goals. Thus, public power is transformed into political power, the subject of which is a social group or class.

Further separation of power from society leads to the fact that it is concentrated in the hands of a certain group of people who are engaged only in management, i.e. the state arises as the main subject of power, and we are talking about state power. State power is legally imperative in nature and is exercised through a system of bodies that have separated from society and oppose it.

Power is relatively independent in relation to society, its economic basis, it can purposefully influence the basis and contribute to its change.

It is customary to single out the following main essential features (or characteristics) of power:

1. Sovereignty, which means independence and indivisibility of power. Power cannot be divided between subjects holding different political positions.

2. The authority of power, i.e. the generally recognized influence of the subject of the part in all spheres of the life of society, which is expressed in the fact that the objects of power are ready to fulfill the will of its subject by virtue of the recognition of the legitimacy of power. The authority of power can be formal and informal.

3. The volitional nature of power presupposes the existence of a conscious political program, goals and readiness to consistently achieve its implementation. We can say that willpower determines the power of power.

4. The coercive nature of power by various means, up to the use of violence. In different political systems, the forms of coercion may be different: violence, persuasion, submission, command, domination, etc. Dictatorship is its highest step.

5. The universality (or inclusiveness) of power means its functioning in all spheres of social relations and political processes, the ability to penetrate into all types of human activity, as well as the prevalence of the entire territory subject to it.

The listed features of power reveal its essence and role in society. It is possible to speak about the presence of power in society only if there is a combination of these features. The absence of any one feature leads to a crisis of power and then, accordingly, to anarchy, and this, in turn, inevitably leads to a change in power.

State power is the highest form of political power, exercised by a special administrative apparatus isolated from society within the boundaries of an established territory, having its own internal structure and subordination, and possessing the means of organized and legally enshrined violence.

An important place in considering the essence of power relations is occupied by the question of the principles of the exercise of power. Among them are: centralism, democratic centralism, self-government. Centralism provides for the unilateral influence of the subject of power on its object. Centralized influence by its nature can be limited and unlimited. It depends on the degree of the reverse effect on the subject of power relations. The higher the activity of the object in the formation of power, the more restrictions the centralized control has. Traditionally, centralism as a principle of organizing power relations is associated with a monarchical form of government, authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes.

Democratic centralism for its effective implementation involves the implementation in practice of the following main points: a) the joint development of political decisions between the subject and object of power (implementation of coordinated political actions); b) centralized regulation of power relations from above, aimed at the implementation of democratically adopted decisions (subordination of the minority to the majority); c) the possibility of a reverse effect of the object on the subject of power relations, which gives centralism a truly democratic character (a kind of control of lower authorities over higher ones); d) electivity of all government bodies on the basis of the adopted universal suffrage. Implementation of the principle of democratic centralism is possible only under conditions of democratic political regimes.

Self-government involves self-regulation by public education of one's life. At the same time, we can talk about the organizational coincidence of the subject and object of power relations, which is expressed in the functioning of a self-governing system, where the functions of domination and the function of subordination are combined. The implementation of this principle in practice is possible only with a stable political system and a fairly high level of political culture of society.

The political status of the individual

The problem of individual participation in politics has a multifaceted significance. In any society, politics is carried out by certain individuals. Emphasizing the significant role of social groups, one should not forget that they consist of individuals, and therefore the problem of man in politics still remains.

There are two classical approaches to the problem of the role of personality in history. In one of them, the role of the individual in social development was exaggerated, creating its cult. Supporters of the second, on the contrary, believed that the individual does not play any independent role, but only acts in accordance with the prevailing conditions. Both of these approaches, expressing extreme positions, failed to reveal the true role of the individual in politics.

Personality is a product of historical development. Its political consciousness is formed under the influence of social and political reality. A person in his activity can and does have a reverse influence on the political process, and having learned its objective laws, he is able to control this process.

The following prerequisites are necessary for the active inclusion of the individual in the political process:

1. Material, the essence of which is set forth in the law of the development of human history discovered by K. Marx that “people must first of all eat, drink, have a home and dress before being able to engage in politics, science, art, religion etc." (Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T: 19. - P. 350-351). History has convincingly proved that for normal political activity, a person needs, first of all, to achieve a certain level of well-being.

One of the largest American political scientists S. M. Lipset comes to the conclusion that the richer the society, the more open it is to democratic forms of functioning; a higher level of national well-being serves as a necessary basis for higher professional training of managerial personnel.

2. Socio-cultural prerequisites, which include the social environment and education. The social environment forms the foundations of a person's worldview, certain value orientations, a system of ideals and norms of behavior.

Equally important is education. Lenin's statement that an illiterate person is outside of politics is well known. Modern foreign political science, on the basis of numerous studies, has made a generally accepted conclusion that the higher the level of education of a person, the more

politically oriented, its influence on politics is more active (S.M. Lipset, V.Key, G.Almond, S.Verba, etc.)

3. Political and legal prerequisites determine the possibility of an individual's participation in politics. These include the type of political regime, the essence of political culture, the legal security of guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the individual, as well as the participation of members of society at all stages of the political process.

The combination of these prerequisites largely determines the development of the political activity of the individual as a real subject of politics. The participation of an individual in politics can be different, which is expressed in his attitude to power, political activity and influence.

There are several levels of political activity of a person (or different types of political status):

1. Ordinary member of society. This is a person with minimal political influence, minimal activity and interest in political issues. In a certain sense, one can even speak of the apolitical nature of such a person.

2. A person who takes a certain part in the political life of society. He may participate in the activities of a social movement or organization. His political activity is manifested by virtue of his belonging to this organization and does not go beyond the scope of its activities.

3. A person who is a member of a political organization but participates independently in political life. His direct inclusion in politics is determined by his capabilities and the specific role that he performs as a member of this organization. This is already a conscious inclusion in politics.

4. Public figure, in particular, a political figure. This is the so-called political activity "part-time". As a rule, this is the head of a public organization. Having a certain profession, sphere of occupation, he directs the main activity of his activity to the solution of political issues. This may be related both to personal aspirations and to positions as the head of an organization in order to increase its role in political life.

5. A professional politician, for whom politics has become not only a profession, a source of livelihood, but also the main occupation, the meaning of his whole life. These are, first of all, the leaders of political parties, senior officials of government bodies, etc.

6. Political leader (organizer, ideologist, leader). Traditionally, the leader has formal or informal authority and has actual influence on those around him.

The selected types of political status of a person only schematically reflect his role in politics. In real political practice, everything is much more complicated.