Political processes differ from each other in scale, duration, factors, the nature of the interaction between factors, etc. In political science, there are various types of political processes. There are several ways to typify political processes based on different criteria.
Based on the different scale of political processes, several of their varieties can be distinguished. These are, first of all, everyday political processes (“small” factors and units of measurement), which are connected, first of all, with the direct interactions of individual, group and partly institutional factors. An example is the legislative process in a parliament.
Another type of political process is the historical political process (larger factors - mostly groups and institutions). These are processes associated with the commission of any historical event. Thus, political revolution can be represented as a process of this kind. The emergence and development of some political party can be considered as the same historical process.
Finally, these are evolutionary political processes, which are characterized by the participation of “large” factors (institutions, the political system), and are also measurable using large-scale time units. Such processes can be, for example, the process of turning a policy into an imperial capital, or the modernization of the political system as a result of a series of political reforms, or the transition to democracy as a result of the dismantling of authoritarian rule, holding constituent elections, and then fixing them in a series of regular competitive elections.
There are other criteria for distinguishing between individual types and varieties of the political process. So, A.I. Solovyov draws such distinctions on the basis of differences in subject areas. In addition, A.I. Solovyov singles out open and closed political processes. Closed political processes “mean the type of change that can be fairly unambiguously assessed within the criteria of best/worst, desirable/undesirable, etc. Open processes demonstrate a type of change that does not allow us to suggest which - positive or negative for the subject - character the existing transformations have or which of the possible strategies in the future is more preferable .... In other words, this type of processes characterizes changes that take place in extremely unclear and uncertain situations, which imply an increased hypothetical nature of both ongoing and planned actions. Also, it highlights stable and transient processes. Stable processes imply "sustainable reproduction of political relations", and transitional ones - the absence of "a clear predominance of certain basic properties of the organization of power", which is carried out in conditions of "imbalance in the political activity of the main subjects".
The political process is a dynamic characteristic of politics. Therefore, it can be argued that the forms of existence of the political process are political changes and political development. Many researchers distinguish different types of political processes, understanding under them the types of political changes and political development.
Depending on the nature of the changes, evolutionary and revolutionary types of political development are distinguished. Evolutionary is understood as a type that includes gradual, step-by-step qualitative changes. Under the revolutionary - the type of development, focused on the scale and transience. Despite the heuristic significance of distinguishing these types, one should recognize the conditionality of their difference in relation to political development. In fact, political development is evolutionary in nature, revolutions are only part of the evolutionary path. Their scale and transience is of fundamental importance only from the point of view of everyday life and history.
Quite often, stable and crisis types of development are distinguished. It is assumed that a stable type of political development is characteristic of societies where there are sufficient institutional guarantees and public consensus that prevent sharp changes in the political course and, all the more so, a sharp change in the political regime. At the same time, it is assumed that the basis for stable development is the ability of the system to adequately respond to the challenges of the environment. This contributes to the gradual and smooth nature of the changes.
The crisis type of development is typical for societies where there are no such necessary conditions and the system is unable to give adequate responses to external changes. Then political development is carried out in the form of a crisis, which can affect both individual aspects of political life and the entire system. The development of a full-scale crisis leads to an unstable state of the system or even to its collapse.
The distinction between these two types of political development should also be recognized as conditional. In fact, stable or crisis development is very often understood not as the evolutionary dynamics of a political system, but as a characteristic of everyday and historical political processes taking place within its framework. However, reports, for example, about a government crisis do not at all indicate the crisis nature of the political development of a given political system.
It should also be noted that in practice, the impetus and, in a certain sense, the engine of the development of any political system are systemic crises. Crises appear as a result of a mismatch between the structures and methods of communication between the elements of the system and emerging needs. Their resolution requires qualitative changes in the system or its individual parts. In practice, we can, as a rule, observe an alternation of crises and periods of relative stability. Thus, the crisis nature of changes and political stability should be considered not as characteristics of political development as a whole, but as features of its individual moments.
There are also types of political development based on its content. Among them, globalization should be highlighted. Other types of political development are political modernization, democratization.
Question 1. The concept and types of political process
Lecture 7. Political process
Lecture questions:
1. The concept and types of the political process.
2. Political change and political development.
3. Theories of political modernization.
1.1. Political process - this is a set of consistent actions of various subjects of politics aimed at conquering, retaining, strengthening and using political power in society.
The term ʼʼprocessʼʼ ( from lat. "processus"- promotion) usually characterize a certain movement that has its own direction; successive change of states, stages, evolution; a set of sequential actions to achieve a result.
Main types of political processes:
a) the formation of bodies of the political system;
b) reproduction of the components and features of the political system in the process of its functioning:
c) adoption and implementation of political decisions.
The interrelation of these processes gives rise to a complex combination of actions aimed at ensuring the constancy, inviolability of political relations and their change, at giving them dynamics and renewal.
Highlight extreme types of political process:
a) rebellion
Anyone uprising a certain level of organization is inherent, leaders who put forward certain goals play a big role here. These goals are justified in a simple program, slogans.
The presence of a certain degree of organization, purposefulness, the uprising differs from rebellion - mass action, which has an even more time-limited course, as well as the problem, the reason that caused it.
Rebellion is almost always a response to any extraordinary actions of representatives of the dominant political groups, state bodies, which does not outgrow the limited tasks of resisting individual actions of the government.
rebellion in terms of intensity, emotional, tension, it is close to a riot, but unlike it, it has a more limited number of participants. Rebellion arises as a result of thoughtful, purposeful preparation of a certain group of people. It is armed in nature, the emphasis is on military force, and the main core of the rebels is usually the army.
With the addition of a wider group of participants to its initiators, the rebellion quickly loses the quality of an organized, purposeful action. A person here is subject to emotions, and his actions are increasingly losing touch with the real conditions and possibilities of society. This logic of development quickly gives the rebellion the quality of a rebellion, it exhausts its transformative potential and fades.
If the masses do not join the rebels, then the rebellion becomes putsch , that is, it is expressed in armed actions that are not based either on broad support, or on the consideration of the situation, or on a well-thought-out program.
According to the ways to achieve a dynamic balance of the political system in the course of its transformations, which involve a certain sequence of political changes, one can single out three types of political processes:
a) technocratic;
b) ideocratic;
c) charismatic.
This classification is the result of a theoretical assumption, isolating some ideal types that are closely interrelated and intertwined in political practice.
Political process of technocratic type. Participants strictly adhere to those political roles and functions that are assigned to them by law, political traditions.
This type has developed in countries with a relatively high homogeneity of the cultural environment - in the Anglo-Saxon countries. The adherence of the majority of the population to traditions ensures the stability of the political system, the preservation of the high efficiency of its political institutions, since the leaders act as the bearer of the interests of those institutions that they directly represent.
Political process of ideocratic type characteristic of traditional societies, where there is no autonomous personality, developed differentiation of political roles and functions that are at the initial stage of modernization. It is possible to integrate a society heterogeneous in ethno-cultural and socio-economic relations on the basis of a national idea.
Political process of charismatic type. This type is characteristic of the Eastern cultural tradition, within which the role and status of a political leader are absolutized, and often they are simply deified. But not always a political leader is a leader by office. He should also be an informal leader.
The charismatic type of political change is effective if it is complemented by technocratic and ideocratic political processes. The leader's charisma can be based either on his official status, or on his ability to express the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of members of society, using discontent, protest and promising to change the situation for the better without fail.
Question 1. The concept and types of the political process - the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Question 1. The concept and types of political process" 2017, 2018.
According to the objects of influence, political processes are divided into foreign and domestic political processes.
According to the nature of the transformation of the state, there are:
Revolutionary and evolutionary political processes.
In the first case, there is a rapid and qualitative change in the power structures of the state, a complete revision of its constitution, conflict increases, political elites are updated, which is accompanied by the radicalism of the decisions made and the predominance of violence in their implementation.
The evolutionary political process is based on the legitimacy of political power. Here, the resolution of social problems occurs gradually, peacefully, on the basis of the legal competition of political parties, the interaction of the elite and the masses, the stability of decision-making procedures and institutions; the predominance of the ethics of compromise in political behavior, the consensus of tolerance for dissent and the obligatory presence of the institution of political opposition.
There are also open and closed political processes.
An open political process is characterized by openness, accessibility for citizens who participated in the process of making political decisions.
Closed political processes are characterized by the lack of transparency and publicity in making political decisions, the exclusion or significant restriction of the political activity of citizens, the complete absence of control over the ruling elite by society.
On the whole, it is important to know that no matter what type of political process is discussed, forecasting its results is a thankless task, most often these forecasts turn out to be unfulfilled.
Topic 11. ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL SUBJECTS
PROCESSES
1.1 Nature and functions of political elites and leaders.
1.2 Mechanisms for the formation (recruitment) of the political elite.
1.3 Processes of change (circulation) of political elites and leaders.
1.1 Nature and functions of political elites and leaders. The term "elite" comes from the French "elite" - the best, selective, chosen. Since the 17th century, it has been used to designate goods of the highest quality. The Oxford University Dictionary in 1823 for the first time applied the concept of "political elite" to the characteristics of the highest social groups in society. However, the term "elite" was not widely used in the social sciences until the beginning of the 20th century, that is, until the appearance of the works of V. Pareto (1848-1923), G. Mosca (1858-1941), R. Michels (1876- 1936).
The concept of "elite" refers to a narrow and relatively closed circle of people with a fairly constant and limited number, with strong internal connections, having a significant weight compared to the environment.
The variety of existing definitions of the elite reflect its value and functional qualities. The term "elite" has firmly entered the sociological and political dictionaries and implies the following content:
Persons with the highest performance in their field of activity (V. Pareto);
The most politically active people oriented towards power (G. Mosca);
People who have received the greatest prestige, status in society (G. Lasswell);
Persons in power, performing the most important functions (Keller);
The creative minority opposed to the uncreative majority (Toynbee);
Persons with intellectual and moral superiority over the mass (Ortega y Gasset);
Along with the term "elite", the phrases "ruling elite", "ruling groups", "ruling circles", etc. are widely used in everyday life. In modern Western political science, the tradition of using the categories "ruling elite" and "political elite" has become established.
The political elite is a relatively small, privileged group, concentrating in their hands a significant amount of political power, monopoly making political decisions, exercising control over their implementation.
The existence of the political elite is determined by the following factors:
1. Social inequality of people, their unequal abilities, opportunities and desire to participate in politics;
2. Increasing professionalization of politics and the need for specialized political knowledge for rapid decision-making;
3. Professionalization of managerial work and its allocation to a special environment of activity (management), including political;
4. Wide opportunities for using management activities to obtain various social benefits and privileges;
5. The practical impossibility of exercising comprehensive control over the ruling elite;
6. The political passivity of the broad masses of the population, whose main vital interests usually lie outside the sphere of politics, the prevalence of absenteeism;
The political elite is an organizational minority, a controlling group that is part of a class or social stratum and has real political power, enabling it to influence all spheres of society.
The essential functions of the political elite can be designated as strategic, communicative, organizational, integrative.
In political science, an attempt has been made to classify political elites on various grounds:
1) By place in the political system and participation in the exercise of power distinguish between the ruling elite and the non-ruling (counter-elite). The ruling elite directly makes political decisions that determine the program for the development of the entire society. The non-ruling elite (counter-elite) is trying to influence this process by available means. Competition in the field of activity of the elites is very tough and is constantly growing. The change of the ruling elite is a natural process in which there are stages of origin, development, obsolescence and death of elites.
As a result, the following properties can be recognized for the ruling elite:
Any society is elitist, it welcomes the ruling elite;
Internal organization, cohesion and group identification;
Ambition and strong will to organize and regulate the life of the masses;
Integration and representativeness;
Retention of power with the help of force and "flirting" with the masses;
Change in power as a result of competition;
2) According to the level of competence and scope of power the elite is subdivided into the highest (nationwide), middle (regional), local (administrative). The highest political elite, significant for the whole country, makes the most important strategic political decisions. This includes the president and his entourage, the head and members of the government, heads of parliament, the highest judicial authorities, leaders of influential political parties and blocs. The middle elite includes representatives of elected authorities: deputies, governors, mayors, leaders of regional branches of parties and movements. The administrative elite includes the highest stratum of civil servants and administrative officials who carry out the technical execution of decisions.
3) By the degree of representativeness of the elite come in high and low representation. The differences between them lie in the degree of expression of interests (professional, ethnic, religious and others) of various subjects of society.
4) According to the structure and nature of intra-elite relations there are integrated and disunited political elites. Elites with a high degree of integration develop a unified system of political values, common rules for political competition and the exercise of power, and coordinate the main goals and methods of the policy pursued. They are characterized by consensual relations with a low degree of conflict. Weakly integrated (disunited) elites are characterized by a sharp political struggle for spheres of control and resources of power, for mastering strategic positions.
5) According to the intensity of circulation and recruitment methods open and closed elites are distinguished. The open elites are characterized by the following features: fairly free access to the elite based on competition and taking into account business personal qualities, dynamic circulation, and the ability to innovate and reform. Closed elites are characterized by slow circulation, limited access to new members on the basis of rigid formal features (nobility, party membership, religiosity, etc.), corporatism and inability to quickly respond to ongoing social changes. Such elites are more inclined to turn into closed oligarchic groups and self-degenerate.
The term "political leadership" is widely used in modern political science and political practice. A leader (from the English “leader”) is a person who has a decisive influence on other people and the ability to direct their collective actions.
Political leadership- this is the constant priority influence of an individual (group, party, association) on the whole society or a significant part of it with the help of real power and political decisions.
The phenomenon of leadership interested many thinkers and researchers (Plato, Plutarch, Machiavelli, Nietzsche), psychologists (Freud, Adler), sociologists (E. Bogardus, M. Weber, M. Hermann, G. Almond). The wide scientific and public interest in the institution of leadership emphasizes its versatility and social significance. “People cannot do without leadership, as they cannot do without food and water,” stressed former French President De Gaulle.
There are a variety of theories explaining the nature and origin of leadership.
trait theory(E. Bogardus) claims that certain personal qualities (mind, intellect, energy, sociability, etc.) allow a person to become a leader. However, the individual traits of a leader based on this theory are no different from the psychological and social qualities of any individual.
situational theory proves that the leader is a function of a certain situation, and he can appear as a result of a successful combination of circumstances in which his outstanding qualities will be in demand (Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev).
Leader Follower Theory defines the nature of leadership on the basis of a special form of relationship between an authoritative person and the environment whose interests it expresses. However, leaders cannot always justify the expectations of their constituents (followers) and can even endanger the existence of the country, the nation (Hitler, Stalin).
The concept of psychoanalysis(Z. Freud) explains the nature of leadership by the presence in the individual of special psychological traits and motives that push him to political domination, to impose his will, etc.
Some people compensate for psychological stress and personal inferiority complexes with the help of unlimited power, the use of force, etc.
Existing systems in political science classifications (typologies) political leaders are conditioned by the desire to predict their behavior.
The typology of M. Weber is based on the ways of legitimizing political power and offers three ideal types of leadership:
1. Traditional (leaders, elders, monarchs);
2. Rational-legal (elected leader in accordance with current laws);
3. Charismatic - based on the deification of leadership and faith in its exclusivity, holiness and supreme justice;
According to the methods and methods of exercising power, they distinguish authoritarian and democratic types of leaders .
In modern political science, the typology of leaders proposed by M. Hermann is used, based on the features of their political activity:
Standard-bearer leader, able to captivate the masses with an attractive great goal, idea;
A servant leader who acts as a spokesman and advocate for the interests of his constituents;
Leader-ideologist, preacher and inspirer of a certain ideology;
The leader-trader, can present his ideas attractively, makes them "buy" and implement;
Leader-firefighter, focuses on current problems and their solution;
The Institute of Leadership performs the following main functions in society:
Management (for political decision-making);
Integration, associated with the unification of the people, nation,
social strata based on common ideas and values;
Communicative, providing a link between the government and
society;
Mobilizing, aimed at organizing the implementation
certain goals and objectives;
Function of social arbitration;
The function of legitimizing the political regime with the help of personality
1.2 Mechanisms for the formation (recruitment) of the political elite. The problem of recruiting (recruitment) of the elite is one of the most important in elitology. Unlike professional elite communities, the political elite is an "open" system. In other words, a person who does not have special training, as a rule, cannot apply for a place in the corresponding professional elite (musician, actor, scientist, etc.). While the circle of the political elite may include persons of different professions with different social, educational and other status. The main reason for the "openness" of politics, according to political scientists, is its fundamental feature as universality: the processes taking place in this area are a form of expression of not only political, but economic, social, national, spiritual and other contradictions.
The mechanisms for recruiting the elite are understood as the principles of its promotion into the composition of an elite society. The most important of these principles are:
a) consanguinity;
b) noble origin (elites by origin);
c) possession of wealth, property;
d) education, knowledge (information);
e) professional competence;
f) party, national, religious affiliation;
g) protectionism;
h) personal loyalty to the system, leader, religion, etc.
i) seniority or length of service;
j) appointment;
k) delegation through elections;
In practice, two main systems for recruiting political elites have developed - guild and entrepreneurial; they determine: who, how and from whom carries out the selection, what are its order and criteria; the circle of people carrying out the selection (selectorate); motives for his actions.
What are the main features of the two recruiting models of contemporary political elites?
Guild system (from German gilde - corporation) - involves:
Closeness of the elite from the masses;
A clear hierarchy within the elite with slow progress through the ranks of power;
The presence of many formal requirements for holding positions (education, work experience, party experience, etc.);
The selection of candidates is carried out from certain social
groups (estates, classes, castes, clans and others);
Decisions, including personnel decisions, are made by a narrow circle of people;
Stability and sustainability of the elite, its values and regulations;
Lack of competition and low probability of conflict relations;
Continuity and predictability of elite actions;
The merging of the elite and the bureaucracy;
Political scientists (M. Dzhilas, M. Voslensky) call the nomenklatura method of selecting elites an example of a guild system.
The nomenklatura reproduces traditional ties (kinship, clan), absolutizes the official ideology, excluding competition, demonstrates conformism and ostentatious formal activism.
Entrepreneur (from the French entrepreneur - entrepreneur) system is distinguished by:
Openness to the masses, recruiting from a wide variety of backgrounds;
Specific selection with a small number of formal requirements for candidates for the elite;
Decision making taking into account all interested forces;
The main value is the individual activity of the members of the elite;
The main resources of this elite are leadership and innovation;
elite dynamism.
In the entrepreneurial system, preference is given to promising candidates who have passed the career steps in a shorter period of time. Here, mass politics, elections, appeals to public opinion, and the politics of the media play an important role in the nomination of candidates. Self-promotion is important in this system, which does not exclude the possibility of random people joining the political elite, capable of producing only an external effect.
The bureaucracy acts as an important channel for elite formation, mainly in developing countries. However, even in such developed countries as Germany, Japan, Sweden, the predominant part of the highest political elite owes its position precisely to the public service. The priority channel for getting into the elite in Russia is also the public service.
The role of elite recruitment channels is performed by significant social institutions. For example, religious organizations and trade unions.
1.3 Processes of change (circulation) of political elites and leaders. The struggle and change of elites, according to the classics of elitism (Pareto, Mosca, Nichels), occurs in any society and is a regularity of social development.
G. Mosca believed that there were two tendencies in the development of elites: aristocratic and democratic. The first is manifested in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, leading to its caste and closeness, and, consequently, to degeneration and stagnation. The second, democratic, trend is expressed in the renewal of the political elite at the expense of the most able to manage and active social strata. Such renewal prevents the elite from degenerating and makes it capable of effectively managing society.
V. Pareto formulated the theory of the circulation of elites, which can be used to explain social dynamics. Social history, as the scientist believed, is the history of the succession of privileged minorities (elites), which are formed, fight, achieve power, exercise it, decline and are replaced by other elites. This phenomenon of the emergence of new elites occurs in the course of a continuous circulation that ensures the social balance of the social system. The cessation of such circulation leads to the degeneration of the ruling elite, to a revolutionary breakdown of the system.
The German sociologist R. Michels was pessimistic about the possibilities of dynamics and renewal of elites even in a democracy. He formulated the "iron law of the oligarchy", according to which the rule of the elite is permanently fixed on the "pedestal of power" by virtue of their inherent qualities and seek to perpetuate their dominance.
The processes of renewal and change of political leaders depend on the nature and types of political regimes.
Under the conditions of non-democratic regimes (totalitarian, authoritarian), leadership degenerates into leaderism and can become lifelong, turning into a cult of personality (Hitler, Stalin).
The change of leaders and the mechanism for the transfer of power from leader to leader takes place within the surrounding clan, clan, party. The new leader inherits the power technology of his predecessors.
Unlike leaderism, leadership is not inherited. In democratic political systems, each new leader emerges through a mandatory periodic competitive election process. Leadership cannot be for life. It should be confirmed by actions, innovative ideas and their translation into reality. It is not necessary to identify the political leader and the head. The latter, as a rule, appears as a result of appointment to a post and has an official status. The ideal option is the coincidence in one person of the qualities of a leader and the status of a leader.
Similar information.
Political process - an ordered sequence of single actions and interactions of political subjects, as a rule, creating and recreating.
Political reality is formed by the activities of people associated with the realization of power interests and the achievement of goals. In the process of activity, individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, that is, various kinds of political subjects or actors interact with other subjects. The actions and interactions of political actors are carried out in time and space. The result is a connected sequence of actions and interactions. Such a sequence is indicated in political science by the words political process. It is possible to give another definition of the political process - different in form, but close in essence: the political process is the deployment of politics in time and space in the form of an ordered sequence of individual actions and interactions, which is connected by a certain logic or meaning.
The political process is a dynamic characteristic of politics, therefore its forms are political change and political development.
Category "political process" in political science
In ordinary consciousness, the phrase political process often associated with the use by the authorities of their judicial punitive apparatus to prosecute political opponents, for example, with the Stalinist political trials, with show trials of dissidents, with attempts to prosecute anti-fascists in Nazi Germany, etc. When describing such phenomena, political scientists also use this expression. However, in political science, words political process is one of the basic categories of political analysis, which is used primarily to denote the deployment of politics in time and space in the form of an ordered sequence of actions and interactions of political subjects regarding the use of institutions of power, which is united by a certain logic or meaning.
Sometimes these interactions of political actors can be purely random. Sometimes they are natural or even "programmed" - not in details, but in general, in their nature, type. As a result of such “expected” actions, stable connections and relationships are created. This is how rules, norms, organizations, etc. arise, which in the aggregate are denoted by the concept of “institution”.
As an example of a political process, one can cite the entire set of interactions that is associated with elections. During the election campaign, there is an action and interaction of political actors (voters, political parties, etc.). In the electoral process, political institutions are also reproduced (or created) (the institution of elections, the electoral system, etc.). You can also find different meanings of the electoral process. So, for the countries of modern developed democracy, it consists in the implementation of the principle of popular sovereignty, electivity and turnover of government bodies as a result of elections, as well as in the choice of political courses offered by the ruling or opposition parties.
In political science, there are different points of view on what the political process is. Some researchers believe that the concept political process can have two meanings depending on what level of policy deployment we are talking about - about the micro level, that is, about the directly observable activity or even single actions of individuals, or about the macro level, that is, about the phases of the functioning of institutions, for example, parties, states, etc. .d. In the first case, the political process is understood as “a certain resultant sum of shares (actions - Auth.) various socio-political subjects” . In the second case, the political process is defined as a “cycle” (more precisely, it would be a “phase” - Auth.) political changes, successive changes in the states of the political system” . Although each of the above definitions seems to refer to different (different order) phenomena, in fact both characterize one and the same side of politics, one and the same reality. The difference lies in the system of coordinates adopted by the researchers and the units of measurement of the political process.
And the speech of a politician, and the course of an individual rally, and the confrontation of political parties, and the interaction of the system with the environment - all this and each series of these phenomena in itself, and all of them together turn out to be what political science calls the political process. Conclusions about the nature and content of the political process are made on the basis of who researchers or analysts choose as the main subjects of interaction, and also on the basis of what time unit is taken as the basis for measuring this process. It also matters whether the influence of the environment on the interaction of political actors is taken into account, and if so, what kind (social, cultural, economic, political) and how.
In European and Anglo-American political science, the concept of "political process" in the broad sense that was discussed above, as a rule, is not used. Nevertheless, individual forms of the political process, for example, or its types, such as, for example, or the content of individual political processes, for example, decision-making, are being actively studied. The concept of "political process" is usually used to denote a special private theory in political science - "the theory of political processes" (political process theory, PPT). This theory was developed in the 1970s and 1980s. mainly in the USA to study the role of political opportunities and mobilization structures in the formation and functioning of social movements. Such researchers as B. Klandermans, H. Kraizi, D. Macadam, J. McCarthy, S. Tarrow, C. Tilly, M. Zald made a special contribution to its development. The authors of the theory focused on the interaction of the characteristics of social movements, in particular organizational structure, with a broader economic and political context. The main attention was paid mainly to the structural aspects of politics. In recent decades, supporters of the theory of the political process have paid more attention to its dynamic characteristics. However, the authors focus on social movements.
Structure, actors and analysis of the political process
Many ordinary people, journalists, as well as some analysts and even scientists believe that the political process is a spontaneous phenomenon of an irrational nature, depending on the will and character of people, primarily political leaders. There is some truth in these arguments, because “unlike the static elements of politics, it is in the political process that the factor of chance is fully manifested, whether it is the sudden death of a charismatic leader, which inevitably entails a qualitatively new political situation, or external influence ( for example, the aggravation of global problems), which can change the dominant subjects.
The significance of random phenomena and events is especially noticeable at the micro level. However, the general nature of political activity as goal achievement, as well as the institutional and other contexts of this activity (rules, certain forms and modes of behavior, traditions, prevailing values, etc.) make the political process as a whole orderly and meaningful. It is a logically unfolding sequence of interactions between actors. Thus, the political process is by no means a chaotic sum of random phenomena and events, but an integrity that lends itself to structuring and scientific analysis.
The structure of the political process can be described by analyzing the interaction between various political actors, as well as by identifying the dynamics (main phases of the political process, the change of these phases, etc.) of this phenomenon. Of great importance is also the elucidation of the factors influencing the political process. Thus, the structure of the political process can be defined as a set of interactions between actors, the conditions of these interactions, its logical sequence (the “plot” of the political process) and results. Each individual political process has its own structure and, accordingly, its own “plot”. Actors of the political process, the totality of their interactions, sequence, dynamics or plot, time units of measurement, as well as factors influencing the political process, are called parameters of the political process.
The main actors of the political process are political systems, political institutions (state, civil society, political parties, etc.), organized and unorganized groups of people, as well as individuals.
It should be noted that this model reflects only one of the types of the political process and cannot be considered universal.
The analysis of political processes includes the identification of its main actors, their resources, methods and conditions of their interaction, as well as the very logical sequence of this interaction. In addition, the factors of the political process, the level of equilibrium, the space and time of its course can be distinguished as parameters of the political process.
An important point in the analysis of the political process is the identification of its static and dynamic characteristics, generalized in the concepts of “political situation” and “political change”.
Depending on the nature of the changes, evolutionary and revolutionary types of political development are distinguished. Evolutionary is understood as a type that includes gradual, step-by-step qualitative changes. Under the revolutionary - the type of development, focused on the scale and transience. Despite the heuristic significance of distinguishing these types, one should recognize the conditionality of their difference in relation to political development. In fact, political development is evolutionary in nature, revolutions are only part of the evolutionary path. Their scale and transience is of fundamental importance only from the point of view of everyday life and history.
Quite often, stable and crisis types of development are distinguished. It is assumed that a stable type of political development is characteristic of societies where there are sufficient institutional guarantees and public consensus that prevent sharp changes in the political course and, all the more so, a sharp change in the political regime. At the same time, it is assumed that the basis for stable development is the ability of the system to adequately respond to the challenges of the environment. This contributes to the gradual and smooth nature of the changes.
The crisis type of development is typical for societies where there are no such necessary conditions and the system is unable to give adequate responses to external changes. Then political development is carried out in the form of a crisis, which can affect both individual aspects of political life and the entire system. The development of a full-scale crisis leads to an unstable state of the system or even to its collapse.
The distinction between these two types of political development should also be recognized as conditional. In fact, stable or crisis development is very often understood not as the evolutionary dynamics of a political system, but as a characteristic of everyday and historical political processes taking place within its framework. However, reports, for example, about a government crisis do not at all indicate the crisis nature of the political development of a given political system.
It should also be noted that in practice, the impetus and, in a certain sense, the engine of the development of any political system are systemic crises. Crises appear as a result of a mismatch between the structures and methods of communication between the elements of the system and emerging needs. Their resolution requires qualitative changes in the system or its individual parts. In practice, we can, as a rule, observe an alternation of crises and periods of relative stability. Thus, the crisis nature of changes and political stability should be considered not as characteristics of political development as a whole, but as features of its individual moments.
.In our opinion, there are four main types of political processes:
1. Economic and political;
2. Structure-forming - a consequence of the formation of certain institutions and systems of norms that model the way the life expectancy of basic social structures;
3. Ideological-political - a consequence of the creation and support of ideological systems;
4. Formation of public opinion.
Domestic political scientist L. S. Mamut identifies the following types of political processes:
· Formation of bodies of the political system (institutionalization);
Reproduction of components and features of the political system in the process of its functioning:
· Adoption and execution of political decisions.
Typology of political processes:
According to the scale of distribution, there are:
global
regional
local
macroscale (general)
microscale (private)
By objects of political influence:
foreign policy (bilateral and multilateral)
internal political (basic and local)
By the nature of the relationship between society and power structures:
stable
unstable
In terms of scope:
economic and political
structure-forming
ideological-political
public opinion formation processes
Flow form:
explicit (open) processes
shadow processes
From the point of view of the systemic organization of political power:
democratic processes
undemocratic processes
26. World community and modern international relations. Principles of the world policies, trends and challenges in its implementation.
The world community (international community) is a political term often used in works on political science, speeches by statesmen and in the media to refer to an interconnected system of states of the world. Depending on the context, it may indicate different groups of countries, united according to various economic, political and ideological characteristics. Sometimes it means existing international organizations, first of all - the UN, as an organization that unites almost all countries of the globe.
International relations are a set of economic, political, legal, ideological, diplomatic, military, cultural and other ties and relationships between entities operating on the world stage.
Concepts and information about world politics
In the course of history, more and more attention is paid to the life of individual citizens and states as a whole by international politics. This is primarily due to the strengthening of the interdependence of countries and peoples, the expansion of economic, scientific and technical, full and other cooperation between them, the development of interpersonal contacts, the creation of powerful media that do not know national borders and global, global information systems.
In the modern world, different levels of politics: macro-, micro- and mega-levels are closely interconnected and have a great influence on each other.
Politics that go beyond nation-states are characterized by a number of categories:
ü Foreign policy is the external action of one nation, one state. It characterizes the activity or, much less often, the conscious inactivity of the state in relation to other countries;
ü International politics - the total activity of states in the international arena.
ü Interstate policy - reflects the system of relations between states, their bodies, services and representatives (president, government, parliament, ministry of foreign affairs, etc.);
ü Supranational politics is a relatively new concept in the political lexicon, which has not yet become widespread in Russian political science. It denotes the sphere of politics formed as a result of the transfer by individual states of part of their sovereign rights to supranational bodies that make decisions in this area;
ü Multinational politics is a joint activity of united political entities from several or many states, for example (OSCE, OAU), affecting international relations. The subjects of this policy are nation-states;
ü Transnational politics - the sphere of international activity of non-state acts or entities: parties, trade unions, international non-governmental organizations, as well as transnational corporations;
ü Transgovernmental policy.
World politics is the result of a deep transformation of international relations and interactions, the emergence of common problems, the solution of which can no longer be found within the framework of national-state borders. As a result of the ongoing changes, the international system is acquiring a global, worldwide character. The solution of global problems of world politics is largely determined by the dynamics of economic development, promising integration processes that lead to increased interconnection and interdependence within the world economy and the world market, and thereby create an economic basis for the progress of world political relations.
World politics differs from the politics of its constituent elements: it is not just a combination or even a resultant of the foreign policies of states and other participants in international relations. Including these components and having its own qualitative features, it has an independent influence on the behavior of the subjects of international relations. All the main elements of world politics are closely interconnected and interact as parts of a single whole. Its effectiveness depends on many factors, including the effectiveness of the political decisions and recommendations being made, the conformity of the foreign policy of states to the real situation.
What distinguishes world politics from domestic politics is the absence of a central authority that ensures compliance with the rules of conduct binding on each subject. Therefore, world politics is a zone of increased risk, in which each participant in the interaction is forced to proceed from the often unpredictable behavior of others. Unlike foreign policy, it develops largely spontaneously and is not limited to the activities of states. By its nature and goals, world politics is a special kind of politics based on the creation and maintenance of a stable international environment in which the interests of all participants could be realized.
However, it would be a mistake to absolutize the features of world politics. Like any politics, it is - albeit peculiar - a sphere of power relations, it represents rivalry and coordination of values, goals and interests of states and other international actors. As in all politics, its objects are the distribution of resources and the organization of social life. This means that world politics acts not only as a special sphere, or field of activity of international actors, but also as a process.
World politics should increasingly become a humanistic strategy to unite people regardless of their nationality, state or social class. This is its purpose and purpose. The most immediate task of world politics is to create a system of international security based on trust and a world free of nuclear weapons, violence, fear, suspicion and hatred.
The next task is to ensure the safety and security of a person. The point is that the principles and norms of international law should become guidelines for each subject of international relations. The increase in the share of, first of all, such values as social and economic well-being, personal well-being and security, the inalienability of fundamental human rights and freedoms, increasingly leads to the fact that the state should give them priority over the traditional values of its foreign policy.
The use of force in world politics in the rivalry of states in the international arena is dangerous. It threatens to destroy humanity. The modern world is rich in new elements that contribute to the redistribution of centers of economic and political activity. Thus, major changes are observed in world politics, in the structure and content of international relations.
