A short course of lectures on political science. Political science, lecture notes Basics of political science lecture notes

POLITICAL SCIENCE. Lectures for university students.

The content of the lecture material introduces the main ideas, concepts, theories and approaches in the study of political science. The fundamental principles in the construction of lecture material are complexity, systematicity, and consistency.
The course of lectures is presented in 9 topics. Each topic contains information that allows you to obtain a real amount of knowledge in accordance with the requirements of the standard.

TOPIC 1. POLITICAL SCIENCE AS A SCIENCE AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE

POLITICAL SCIENCE - DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT.
Political science is the science of politics, the patterns of emergence of political phenomena (institutions, relationships, processes), the methods and forms of their functioning and development, methods of managing political processes, political power, political consciousness, culture, etc.
In addition, here it is necessary to emphasize the differences between political science as a science whose task is to study political reality, and political science as an academic discipline whose goal is to accumulate and transmit knowledge about politics to a large number of people.

1.2. OBJECT AND SUBJECT OF THE STUDY.
The object of political science is the political sphere of society and its individual subsystems. An object is a certain objective reality, independent of the cognizing subject. Moreover, the same object can be studied by different sciences. For example, the political sphere is an object of study for such sciences as political science, political sociology, philosophy, history, management, law, etc. But each of these sciences has its own subject in a single object. For example, history explores the chronology of development political systems through the prism of certain historical events. Political sociology - social aspects of politics. Legal disciplines - legislative foundations of political processes, etc.
The subject of research is what a particular study is aimed at. This is a certain aspect (facet) of a real object. If the object, as already mentioned, does not depend on the cognizing subject, then the subject is selected depending on the goals and objectives of the study. For example, we can take the state as one of the institutions of the political system as the object of study, and the methods of forming state institutions as the subject.
The object and subject largely depend on the direction of the research. There are three main areas of political research:
One of the main directions is the study of political institutions. It involves the study of such phenomena as the state, political power, law, political parties, political and socio-political movements and other formalized and informal political institutions. It must be borne in mind that institutions are not buildings and not the people who fill them. Political institutions (from the Latin institutum - establishment, establishment) are a set of established rules, norms, traditions, principles, regulated processes and relationships in a particular area of ​​politics. For example, the institution of the presidency regulates the procedure for electing the president, the limits of his competence, methods of re-election or removal from office, etc.
Another area of ​​research in political science is political processes and phenomena. This direction involves the identification and analysis of objective laws and patterns, the development of the political system of society, as well as the development of various political technologies for their practical application.
The third area of ​​political research is: political consciousness, political psychology and ideology, political culture, political behavior of people and its motivation, as well as methods of communication and management of all these phenomena.

1.3. METHODS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
The institutional method focuses on the study of political institutions: the state, parties, political organizations and movements, electoral systems and other regulators of political activity and the political process.
With the emergence of sociology as a science in the middle of the 19th century. sociological methods are beginning to be used in political research. This method is also becoming one of the main ones. It is still widely used today.
The sociological method involves identifying the social conditionality of political phenomena, reveals the social nature of power, and defines politics as the interaction of large social communities. Based on specific sociological research (collection and analysis of real facts), the sociological method laid the foundation for applied political science, focused on the practical application of research results.
The comparative method was used already in ancient times. Thus, Plato and Aristotle, based on a comparison of various political regimes, determined the “correct” and “incorrect” forms of the state, and in their theoretical works constructed the most perfect (ideal), in their opinion, forms government structure. Currently, the comparative method is widely used in political research, and comparative political science is a separate, relatively independent scientific direction in the structure of general political science.
The anthropological method analyzes political phenomena based on the natural collectivist essence of man. Aristotle also said that man by nature is a political being and cannot live in isolation. In the course of their evolutionary development, people improve their social organization and at a certain stage move to the political organization of society.
The psychological method involves the study of the psychological mechanisms of political behavior and motivation. It emerged as a scientific direction in the 19th century. However, it was based on many significant ideas of ancient thinkers (Confucius, Aristotle, Seneca) and modern scientists (Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau). Psychoanalysis, the foundations of which were developed by Z. Freud, occupies a significant place in the psychological method. With the help of psychoanalysis, unconscious mental processes and motivations that can have an active impact on political behavior are studied. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. In American psychology, such a scientific direction as behaviorism emerges. In the 30-50s of the XX century. it is actively developing in political science and is becoming one of the most significant political methods in American political science.
The behavioral method is based on empirical observations of social behavior individuals and groups. In this case, priority is given to the study of individual characteristics. This method contributed to the study of voters' electoral behavior and the development of election technologies. Behaviorism made a significant contribution to the development of empirical research methods in politics and contributed to the formation and development of applied political science. The disadvantages of behaviorism include the fact that it gives priority to the study of individuals and groups isolated (atomized) from the general social structure and sociocultural environment, and rejects the historical traditions of peoples and moral principles in favor of “bare” rationality.
Structural-functional analysis assumes that the political sphere, like society as a whole, is a complex system (structure) consisting of many interconnected elements, each of which performs a specific function unique to it.
The systems approach as a separate direction in political research emerged in the 50-60s of the 20th century. The main developers of this approach are American researchers D. Easton and G. Almond. Although the theory of systems itself was one way or another illuminated (developed) in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Marx, Spencer, Durkheim and others. The systems approach essentially becomes an alternative to behaviorism, since, unlike the latter, it considers the political sphere as an integral, self-regulating system that is in direct interaction with external environment. It makes it possible to streamline our ideas about the political sphere, systematize the diversity of political events, and build a certain model of political action. In addition to the methods listed above, there are others in political research. For example, such as the method expert assessments, modeling of political processes, ontological approach, historical approach, etc. In modern political science there are two main levels of research: theoretical and applied.
Theoretical political science deals with the development of general (functional) methods for studying the political sphere of society. But at the same time, all theoretical developments, one way or another, are aimed at solving practical problems.
Applied political science studies specific political situations in order to obtain the necessary information, develop political forecasts, practical advice, recommendations, etc.

1.4. FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AS A SCIENCE AND AS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE.
Functions of political science as a science and how academic discipline They have a lot in common, but there are also certain differences. Let us consider separately each type of political science function.
Political science as a science is a necessary theoretical basis for the further development of political research and for the implementation of scientific developments in real politics.
Political science studies actually existing political systems, ways of organizing society and the state, types of political regimes, forms of government, the activities of political parties and public organizations, the state of political consciousness and political culture, patterns of political behavior, problems of the effectiveness and legitimacy of political leadership, methods of formation institutions of power and much more.
Political research creates a certain theoretical, scientific and methodological basis necessary for the development of political science itself and for improving the political sphere of society. Scientific knowledge in the field of politics allows us to predict and construct political reality, monitor positive and negative trends in the development of political processes and, if necessary, make the necessary adjustments.
Functions of political science as a science and as an academic discipline
The task of political science as an academic discipline is to help people understand all the intricacies of politics, teach them to correctly understand (perceive) the existing social and political system, respond adequately to the emerging political situation.
If we talk briefly about the functions of political science in general, we can highlight the following:
cognitive - a certain way of understanding socio-political reality and identifying the patterns of its development;
analytical - assessment of the state of the political system and the performance of various political factors in the political process;
prognostic - development of scientifically based forecasts about trends (prospects) for the development of political processes;
managerial - using the results of political research to develop and make management decisions;
instrumental - improvement of existing and development of new methods
studies of political reality;
the function of political socialization is the preparation and integration (entry) of the individual and social groups into the political life of society;
ideological - the use of political research in promoting one’s own
ideas and criticism of others.

Literature
Almond G. Political science: history of the discipline // Polis. 1997, no. 6.
Vasilik M. A., Vershinin M. S. Political science. M., 2001. Denken Zh.M. Political Science. M., 1993. Part 1. Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of Political Science. Rostov-on-D., 1996.
Krasnov B.I. Political science as a science and academic discipline // Socio-political journal. 1997. No. 3.
Maltsev V. A. Fundamentals of political science: Textbook. for universities. M., 2002.

Political science. Textbook for universities / Rep. ed. V.D. Perevalov. M., 2001.
Rogachev S.V. The subject of political science and its place in the system of social sciences/State and law.

TOPIC 2. EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL THOUGHT.

2.1. PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL CONCEPT OF POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THE ANCIENT WORLD.
Confucius (Kun Tzu, c. 551-479 BC) is a famous Chinese philosopher and teacher, one of the founders of the philosophical and ethical concept of politics. His political teachings were based on the principles of strict order based on moral standards. Stability in society and order in the state, according to Confucius, can be ensured only if everyone strictly observes their rights and responsibilities.
Confucius associated successful government not with official impersonal legislation, but with the wisdom of a virtuous ruler and his worthy assistants. The ideas of virtue, justice and humanity are among the most important in the ethical teachings of Confucius. He believed that the state is not an end in itself, but a means of ensuring the welfare of the people.
Socrates (c. 470-399 BC) - Ancient Greek philosopher, a principled supporter of legality and moral policy. He divided political regimes into the following types:
Kingdom - power based on the will of the people and state laws; tyranny - the power of one ruler; aristocracy - the rule of persons who execute the laws; democracy is power that belongs to the will of all.
Socrates considered tyranny to be a regime of lawlessness, violence and arbitrariness. He saw the main drawback of democracy in the incompetence of its elected officials. And he considered the most optional way of government to be the aristocracy, which creates good laws.
Socrates was the first in history to formulate the idea of ​​contractual relations between the state and its citizens. If a citizen who has reached the age of majority does not agree with the current regulations, then he has the right to leave its borders with all his property. But the remaining citizens must comply with all decrees of the state and its bodies.
Plato (427 - 347 BC) is one of the greatest thinkers in human history. The basis of his teaching about society and the state were the dialogues “State”, “Politics”, “Laws”. Developing Socrates' ideas about various forms of government, Plato identifies such irregular forms of power as: timocracy (the power of ambitious people), oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. He considers monarchy and aristocracy to be correct forms.
In contrast to all these forms, Plato puts forward and describes the theory of the ideal state. According to this theory, power in such a state should belong to the first layer - philosophers, since only they have access to true knowledge and virtue. The second social layer consists of guards and warriors who protect the state. The third layer is peasants and artisans, who provide material wealth for the state. At the same time, everyone should mind their own business. In the dialogue “Politician,” Plato discusses the art of public administration as a kind of special knowledge. In the dialogue “Laws” he notes that correct forms of thinking must be based on fair laws.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) is an outstanding ancient Greek philosopher, student of Plato, teacher of Alexander the Great. Aristotle outlined his basic socio-political views in his work “Politics”.
According to Aristotle, the beginning of politics is ethics. Therefore, she must be virtuous and fair. “Political justice” is seen as a common good, but it is possible only between free and equal people (not slaves).
If for Plato the state is still an end in itself (the fundamental principle), then Aristotle views it as the result of the natural development of man (family, village), as a certain higher form of communication: “Man by nature is a political being.” But the state is the greatest good for a person.
Aristotle anticipated the understanding of the status of “citizen” in its legal and political meaning by more than 2 thousand years. In his opinion, a citizen is not one who lives in a particular place, but one who has a set of civil rights and has authority in public affairs. The main distinguishing feature of a citizen is virtue. But it cannot be possessed by people engaged in manual labor and trade.
Aristotle, like Plato, also divides the forms of political structure into correct and incorrect. He classifies monarchy, aristocracy and polity as correct. The wrong ones are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. In the right forms, rulers care about the common good, in wrong forms - about the personal good or the good of the few.
Of all forms of government, Aristotle gives greatest preference to polity - an ideally constructed “average” form of government. Polity includes three forms, three principles:
aristocracy presupposes the principle of virtue;
oligarchy - wealth;
democracy - freedom.
Such a symbiosis of three different forms and principles, according to the philosopher, could provide the best (ideal) form of government.
Aristotle was against excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of oligarchs, since they always seek to usurp power and money. He was also against excessive poverty - because it leads to uprisings, the purpose of which is the redistribution of property. Therefore, social stability depends on people of average income: the more such people in a society, the more stable it develops. And political stability in an ideal state should be ensured by correct laws. Cicero (106 - 43 BC) - Roman orator, statesman, writer. If for Plato and Aristotle natural law (true law) was inseparable from the state and arose together with the state, then Cicero in his treatise “On the State” argued that natural law (true law) arose earlier than written laws and the state itself. The source of this supreme law is the divine principle and the rational, social nature of people.
This law applies to all people and cannot be repealed or limited. And the state is only the embodiment of what exists in nature and society.
Subsequently, the doctrine of natural law was inherited by Roman jurists (Roman law) and the fathers of the church, and the very idea of ​​a “rule of law” takes its origins from the natural (inalienable) supreme law, which Cicero spoke about.
The philosophical and ethical concept of political thought of the Ancient World made a significant contribution to the development of the doctrine of the state, politics, and laws. Various forms of state structure, types of political regimes were studied (described) in detail, some methods of rational government management were identified, and a legal framework for state structure was developed.
However, this philosophical and ethical concept is characterized by limitations. It lies in the fact that the state is considered as the fundamental basis of all people's lives. Man, society, law outside the state, as if it means nothing. Only the state can provide a person with virtue and justice. Only Cicero takes the first timid steps towards the distinction between state and society, state and law.

2.2. RELIGIOUS CONCEPT OF POLITICAL THOUGHT (MIDDLE AGES).
In the Middle Ages (V-XV centuries AD), the philosophical and ethical concept of politics in Western Europe was gradually replaced by a religious concept.
During the period of paganism, the functions of religion essentially merged with the tasks of the state and were inseparable from each other.
Christianity, recognizing the legitimacy of the state, began to claim a certain special role in society and the state. In relation to society, it takes on a whole range of social functions, which are not just offered, but imposed on people.
In relations with the state, Christianity, depending on the prevailing circumstances, pursues a fairly flexible policy: it tries to dominate state power (“the city of God is the highest city”); sometimes he maintains formal neutrality (to God - what is God's, to Caesar - what is Caesar's); then he obediently agrees with the state will (“all power is from God”).
Let's consider the views of some of the most prominent representatives religious concept political thought.
Augustine Aurelius (354-430) - Bishop of Hippo, one of the creators of Christian political theory. In his essay “On the City of God,” he outlined his political doctrine. Augustine sharply contrasts the church and the state: “city of God” and “city of earth.” The earthly city includes the devil's will and becomes a social tyrant. The true state, according to Augustine, will be realized only after the second coming of Christ, when the final separation of the righteous and sinners occurs.
The state is considered by Augustine as part of the universal order, the creator and ruler of which is God. Therefore, princes must serve with their power both God and man. To improve public administration, he proposes ideas for renewing the earthly city in line with Christian virtue and humanism.
Thomas Aquinas (Thomas Aquinas 1225/6-1274). Aquinas significantly enriched the religious concept of the state. As a result of long searches and rethinking of various theories, he came to the conclusion that the state has a positive value. It not only preserves peace, but is also an expression of divine foreknowledge and the will of the Almighty on behalf of the people.
In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas discusses eternal law, divine law, natural law, and positive law.
1. Eternal law is the wisdom of God; it directs the entire development of the universe. From it derive all other, more limited forms of law.
2. Divine law (commandments) - additional guidance to natural law.
3. Natural law is the standards of truth and justice inherent in all normal people.
4. Positive law is laws introduced by the state that do not allow people to do evil and disturb the peace.
Positive law, Aquinas emphasized, is introduced according to reason. This means that the monarch is subject to reason and natural law like any other person.
If a positive law introduced by a sovereign is contrary to natural law and reason, then it is illegal and a distortion of law. Only in this case did Aquinas recognize the legitimate action of the people against the monarch. In other cases, speaking out against the authorities is a mortal sin.
The religious concept of the state contributed to the further development of political thought. In particular, she
She brought into the communication of people the spirit of a new Christian sense of justice. And although religion taught people to unquestioningly obey the authorities, Christian moral norms still appeared between the state and society, which contributed to the individualization of people’s legal consciousness.

2.3. CIVIL CONCEPT OF POLITICAL THOUGHT (RENAISSANCE AND MODERN TIMES).
In the XVI - XVII centuries. heterogeneous socio-political forces and ideological movements undermine the power of the Catholic Church. As a result of the Reformation of the Church, the state was freed from church tutelage, and the church itself was freed from the state. One of the results of religious reforms was freedom of conscience and secular recognition of a Christian. Thus, freed from the philosophical and ethical political concept of the Ancient World and the religious concept of the Middle Ages, political thought acquires a secular character. A civil concept of political thought is born, the starting point of which is the individual - the citizen.
Machiavelli Niccolo (1469-1527) - an outstanding Italian thinker and politician. He outlined his basic political views and convictions in such works as: “Discourses on the 1st decade of Titus Livy”, “The Prince”, “On the Art of War”, “History of Florence”. Based on the content of these treatises, Machiavelli can be identified as one of the early representatives of the political theory of capitalism. In his “new method,” Machiavelli was the first to single out political research as an independent scientific direction. He believed that political science should comprehend the true state of affairs, solve real problems of power and management, and not consider imaginary situations.
According to Machiavelli, the state is not God's providence, but the work of man. Therefore, not God, but man is the center of the Universe. The political state of society is characterized by certain relationships between people, between the ruler and his subjects. The purpose of these relations is to ensure order, the inviolability of private property and the security of the individual.
Machiavelli believed that the power of any state should be based on good laws and a strong army. And the ruler himself should be like a centaur, combining the strength of a lion and the cunning of a fox.
Of all forms of government, Machiavelli preferred the republican form. He believed that it was in it that it was possible to best combine the benefits and freedoms of citizens, competing with each other and taking care of both private and public interests. But the forms of government are established not at the whim of individuals or groups, but depending on the relationship of constantly contending forces.
Hobbes Thomas (1588-1679) - an outstanding philosopher and political thinker in England. His main political work is considered to be the book “Leviathan, or the matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil” (1651). His concept was aimed at developing a secular theory of political power and the state, i.e. he denied the theory of divine origin royal power.
Developing the theory of the secular origin of power, Hobbes comes to the conclusion that the state arises as a result of a social contract. In his book “Leviathan,” he describes the chaos (war of all against all) in which people lived in a pre-state state. In search of a way out of chaos, people entered into an agreement, giving up some of their natural rights and transferring them to the state. Thus, they voluntarily limited their freedom in exchange for law and order. Therefore, the source of royal power is the social contract, as a result of which the state appears.
According to Hobbes, the supreme power is absolute, but not total: it does not interfere in the personal affairs of citizens. People are free to do everything that is not prohibited by law: enter into and terminate contracts, sell and acquire property, etc.
John Locke (1632-1704) - English philosopher and politician, founder of liberalism. For the first time, he clearly separated such concepts as the individual, society and the state, and placed the individual above society and the state. In his opinion, individuals create society, and society creates the state. Society and the state are not the same thing. The fall of a state does not mean the fall of society. Society can create another state power if the existing one does not satisfy it.
LOCK was a supporter of a limited monarchy, believing that an absolute monarchy was worse than the natural (pre-state) state. He was one of the first to put forward the idea of ​​separation of powers into legislative and executive, while giving priority to the legislative branch, which, in his opinion, determines state policy. The main purpose of the state, according to Locke, is to protect individual rights
Montesquieu Charles Louis (1689-1755) - French political philosopher, historian, jurist, sociologist.
Montesquieu made a great contribution to the development of the civil concept of political thought. Let us dwell on the two most significant fragments of his legacy.
First. In his most significant work, “The Spirit of Law,” he substantiates the theory that laws are developed and adopted by society (the state) based on a combination of factors. “Many things,” wrote Montesquieu, “control people: climate, religion, laws, principles of government, examples of the past, morals, customs: as a result of all this, the general spirit of the people is formed.”
Second. Analyzing the works of his eminent predecessors, Montesquieu comes to the conclusion that political power in society should be divided into three main types: legislative, executive and judicial, so that the various powers can mutually restrain each other.
With his scientific works, Montesquieu, as it were, completes the architectural structure of the “building” of the civil concept of political thought.

2.4. SOCIAL CONCEPT OF POLITICAL THOUGHT (XIX - EARLY XX CENTURY).
The civil concept of political thought would seem to have prepared a fairly extensive basis for the further development of the individual, society and state. However, in reality everything turned out to be much more complicated. Laws created by the will of the majority became binding on everyone, and if an individual or group had their own opinion that was different from others, then the “general will” forced them to be like everyone else (those who are not with us are against us). Thus, the minority became hostage to the majority. French political scientist Alexis Tocqueville (1805-1859) described this situation with the words “political tyranny of the majority.”
Liberalism in the economic sphere (freedom of private enterprise, individualism, competition) leads to the fact that a significant part of citizens find themselves below the poverty line and cannot take advantage of “guaranteed” rights and freedoms and realize their potential.
In the political sphere, a person, giving part of his powers (his political will) to representative authorities, according to J.-J. Rousseau becomes a slave to this very power.
Realizing the obvious flaws in the civil concept of the state, many political thinkers, trying to find a way out of the difficult situation, are gradually developing a new social concept of political thought, which should be based on humanism and social justice.
John Mill (1806-1873) - English scientist. In his work “Reflections on Representative Government”, in order to rid the minority of the dominant majority, he proposes a system of proportional representation and maximum participation of citizens in the governance of the social state. Tocqueville believes that citizens should voluntarily cooperate in free institutions of local government and voluntary political and civil associations. Thus, they will be able to directly participate in the management of society.
Max Weber (1864-1920) - an outstanding German political economist and sociologist believed that in order to effectively defend their rights and freedoms, individuals must consolidate into interest groups. And in order for the government to enjoy the trust of its people and be able to govern effectively, it must be legitimate.
In the 20th century The liberal concept (neoliberalism) of political thought began to focus more on the social problems of society. In the economic sphere, antimonopoly laws are introduced and taxes on excess profits are increased. Redistribution of income through government agencies and charitable organizations helps reduce the income gap between the richest and poorest segments of the population.
The multi-party political system and the well-functioning structure of the separation of powers largely allow for control over the activities of power structures. A well-functioning election system provides an opportunity for broad sections of the population to participate in the formation of government bodies.
The social concept of political thought, which put forward the idea of ​​​​creating a social state, was able to answer a number of pressing questions. But with the further development of society, new problems appear, the solution of which requires new concepts.

2.5. HISTORY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT IN RUSSIA.
Political thought in Russia dates back to ancient times. The first mentions of the origin of the state, the structure of power and its justification are attested in such documents as the “Sermon on Law and Grace” of the Kiev Metropolitan Hilarion (1049), in the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” (1113), “The Order of Vladimir Monomakh” (1125), etc.
The Mongol-Tatar invasion interrupted the natural course of state building in Rus'. In 1552, Ivan IV the Terrible conquered the Kazan, and in 1556, the Astrakhan Khanate and saved Rus' from the constant threat from the outside.
In the 16th century political ideas in Rus' are receiving new development. For example, the Pskov monk Philotheus develops the idea of ​​a strong, independent Russian state (“Moscow is the third Rome”). I.S. In 1549, Peresvetov handed over to Ivan IV the Terrible his writings, in which he considered ways of forming the supreme power of the state. He advocated the strengthening of autocracy, the formation of an all-Russian army, the creation of unified legislation, restrictions on the boyars, etc. AM also made a significant contribution to the development of political thought. Kurbsky. He believed that power should be based on properly adopted laws.
Until the 18th century The religious worldview had a significant influence on the political and social ideas of Russia. The socio-political and economic reforms of Peter I (early 18th century) not only “opened a window to Europe,” but also contributed to the development of socio-political thought in Russia.
In the 18th century Russian scientists such as F. Prokopovich, V. Tatishchev, D.S. made their contribution to the development of political thought. Anichkov, Ya.P. Kozelsky, A.N. Radishchev and others. But if most of the listed scientists were supporters of the enlightened monarchy, then A.N. Radishchev (1749-1802) is rightfully considered the founder of the revolutionary trend of political thought in Russia. In his works “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” and “Project of a Civil Code,” he opposes autocracy and serfdom. Following Rousseau, Radishchev put forward the idea of ​​popular sovereignty, believing that all peoples were born free and equal. And to defend their freedom, the people have the right to revolt.
In the first half of the 19th century, largely due to the influence of the Great French Revolution, a new period in the development of political thought began in Russia. The advanced Russian intelligentsia feels the need for socio-political and economic reforms in Russia. Secret organizations are created in which problems and prospects for reform are discussed Russian society. New ideas are reflected in the works of such thinkers as P.Ya. Chaadaev, I.I. Nadezhdin, N.S. Mordvinov, M.M. Speransky, N.M. Muravyov, P.I. Pestel and others. Thus, one of the leaders of the December (1825) uprising P.I. Pestel (1793-1826) outlined his republican views in such works as “The Constitution. State Testament" and "Russian Truth". He opposed serfdom and autocracy and believed that the people existed “for their own good” and not for the good of the government.
In the 40-60s of the 19th century. Russian socio-political and philosophical thought is divided into two main movements - Slavophiles and Westerners.
Slavophiles: I.S. and K.S. Aksakovs, I.V. and P.V. Kireevskie, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, A. S. Khomyakov, A. A. Grigoriev and others substantiated the originality of Russia’s historical path and opposed the borrowing of Western European forms of political life. The teaching of the Slavophiles was built on three basic principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality.
Westerners: P.V. Annenkov, A.I. Herzen, V.P. Botkin, T.N. Granovsky, M.H. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin, N.P. Ogarev and others criticized the theory of official nationality and believed that Russia should develop along the Western European path
Despite differences in views, both Slavophiles and Westerners agreed on the need to abolish serfdom, grant civil liberties and reform Russia.
The abolition of serfdom in Russia (1861) contributed to a significant increase in the rate of development of the country, a change in the social and class structure and the activation of socio-political life. This was greatly facilitated by the work of such scientists as A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisarev, P.I. Lavrov, M.A. Bakunin and others. For example, Chernyshevsky believed that the most rational form of government is a republic, and the essence state power determined by economic factors. According to Chernyshevsky, Russia can achieve a democratic republic through a peasant revolution.
At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. In Russia, political ideas and movements of revolutionary democrats, including adherents of Marxism, are emerging and gaining strength. Significant contributions to the development of Marxist theory and practice were made by such scientists and politicians as G.V. Plekhanov, P.B. Struve, V.I. Lenin, L. Martov, L.V. Trotsky, S.N. Bulgakov and others.
With the victory of the socialist revolution (1917), the total dominance of communist (Marxist-Leninist) ideology was established in Russia, through the prism of which all political processes and phenomena were interpreted. An open, pluralistic discussion of political views and ideas became possible only with the beginning of the late 1980s. democratization of Russian society.

Literature
Anthology of world political thought: In 5 volumes. M., 1997.
Aristotle. Politics // Op. in 4 vols. T. 4.1983.
Vinogradov I.B. Political ideas of our time // Socio-political magazine. 1997. No. 1
Vladimirov M. Confucius. M., 1992.
Hobbes T. Leviathan. Op. in 2 volumes. T.2. M., 1990.
History of political and legal doctrines. M., 1991.
LockeJ. Two treatises on government // Op. in 3 volumes. T. 3. M., 1988.
Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M., 1982.
Maltsev V. A. Fundamentals of political science: Textbook. for universities. M. 2002.
Montesquieu III. Selected works. M., 1965.
Fundamentals of Political Science. Textbook allowance. 4.1. /Ed. V.P. Pugacheva. M., 1993.
Plato. Sovereign // Op. M., 1994.
Political sociology. Rostov-on-D., 1997.
Political theory and political practice. Dictionary-reference book. M., 1994.

TOPIC 3. POLITICS AND POLITICAL POWER
3.1. CONCEPT, STRUCTURE AND ESSENCE OF POWER.
In general, power is the ability and ability to influence the behavior and activities of others. The essence of power lies in the relationships of dominance and subordination that arise between those who command and those who carry out these orders, or to whom the influence of power is directed.
Power relations arise wherever stable communities of people exist. Any organization, any joint type of activity cannot be carried out without power relations, without someone leading and someone following instructions. Even in interpersonal communication between people, as a rule, relationships of subordination arise.
There are many different types of power in society, for example, such as: parental, economic, legal, spiritual, ideological, informational, etc.
Based on the means of influence and motives of subordination, we can distinguish such types of power as power based on:
on fear;
on remuneration and interest in subordination;
on the authority of the bearer of power;
on tradition and the habit of obeying;
on legal norms and cultural customs, etc.
the structure of power relations includes the following components:
The subject of power is the one who gives orders.
The object of power is the one to whom the influence of power is directed.
Resources that allow the subject to exercise power over the object.
Submission of the one over whom power is exercised.
The absence of any of the above components makes power relations impossible for the following reasons:
1. Power relations are possible only with the interaction of at least two people, one of whom is the subject, the other is the object.
2. The subject of power must have the necessary resources in order to “force” the object to obey.
If the one to whom the influence of power is directed does not recognize the competence of the subject of power and does not carry out his orders, then power relations do not arise. They can only arise in relations of dominance and submission. In other cases, you can use any resources, any force, but these actions will be qualified as violence, murder, genocide, etc., but not as power relations.

3.2. FEATURES OF POLITICAL POWER.
Any type of power in society arises in a certain area and has its own limits of competence. For example, parental power takes place in the parent-child relationship, economic power in economic relations, etc. Political power has a number of distinctive features from other types of power:
The universal mandatory nature of power and supremacy over all other types of power.
Monopoly on the regulation of political life, on the publication of decrees, orders, etc.
The right to violence is the legality and monopoly of the use of force within one’s country.
The ability to use a wide variety of resources to achieve your goals.
Power cannot be reduced only to domination and subordination (coercion, violence, etc.). Under normal conditions, millions of people “voluntarily” comply with the requirements of the law and do not feel “pressure” from the authorities. Coercion acts as a kind of symbolic intermediary, as an equivalent that defines the line between the norm and deviation. It only applies if a violation has occurred. The frequent use of violence by the authorities indicates the instability of social relations. This is a sign that the government is acting inadequately to its functions, or that a significant part of citizens is unable to fulfill the requirements.
In democratic political systems, political power is divided into: legislative, executive and judicial. This division creates a mechanism of checks and balances, the main task of which is to prevent the usurpation (seizure) of the entire power of one of the branches. However, in reality it is not always possible to establish parity of powers. Thus, in Russia over the past 10 years, the executive branch, headed by the president, has clearly dominated.

3.3. LEGITIMACY OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY.
Legitimate power is usually characterized as lawful and fair. The word legitimacy itself comes from Lat. legitimus - legal. But not every legitimate power can be legitimate. Already in the Middle Ages, theoretical justifications arose that a monarch who becomes a tyrant and does not fulfill his purpose deprives his power of legitimacy. In this case, the people have the right to overthrow such a government (Thomas Aquinas, in particular, spoke about this in the 12th-13th centuries).
Legitimacy is the confidence of the people that the government will fulfill its obligations; this is recognition of the authority of power and voluntary submission to it; This is an idea of ​​the correct and appropriate use of power, including violence. But legitimate power, as a rule, is capable of ensuring stability and development of society without resorting to violence.
Max Weber (1864-1920) identified three main types of political domination and their corresponding forms of legitimacy:
Traditional dominance - legitimacy based on the traditions of a patriarchal society, for example, monarchy - traditional legitimacy.
Charismatic dominance - legitimacy based on the real or imaginary outstanding qualities of a ruler, leader, prophet - charismatic legitimacy.
Dominance based on rationally created rules is the rational-legal legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in a democratic society.
In addition to those listed, there are other types of legitimacy, for example, ideological and structural. Ideological legitimacy is based on some ideological “constructs” - attractive ideas, promises of a “secular future” or “new world order”, etc. Thus, communist ideology and promises of the rapid construction of communism largely provided legitimacy to the Soviet regime of power. And the ideas of National Socialism contributed to the legitimization of the fascist regime in Germany.
Structural legitimacy is based on the rules and norms established in society for the establishment and change of power, for example, the Constitution (constitutional legitimacy). If the majority of citizens are dissatisfied with the existing political power in society, then they “tolerate” it until new elections.

3.4. RELATIONSHIP OF LEGALITY AND LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY.
Legality and legitimacy of power are equivalent, but not identical concepts. The government, which has legitimate grounds for dominance in society, as a result of its ineffective policies may lose the trust of citizens and become illegitimate. For example, the legally elected President of Russia in 1996, B.N. At the end of 1999, Yeltsin enjoyed the trust of no more than 10% of Russian citizens, i.e. completely lost its legitimacy.
On the contrary, power that does not have legal grounds, as a result of effective policies, can gain the trust of the people and become legitimate. For example, General A. Pinochet, who came to power in Chile through a military coup (1973), as a result of an effective economic policy, subsequently became a completely legitimate and legitimate president of the country.
Legitimate, but not legal power, as it were, receives carte blanche (powers) from the people to make people’s lives better, and only then establish the legal basis of power. A legitimate but illegitimate government is deprived of the support of its people and in the future it (the government) may resort to illegal means in politics.
Any political power (even the most reactionary) strives to appear effective and legitimate in the eyes of its people and the world community. Therefore, the process of legitimizing power is the subject special attention ruling elite. One of the most common techniques in this process is to hush up the negative results of one’s policy and “stuff out” real and imaginary successes in every possible way. Often, independent media (means mass media). Therefore, the ineffective and illegitimate government seeks by all means to limit the activities of independent media and/or bring them under its control.
Another technique is when the authorities verbally recognize the values, desires and aspirations of their citizens, declare their intentions to fight corruption, drug addiction, crime, etc., but in reality they pursue their corporate goals, often “covering up” crime within their own ranks .
Sometimes people in power or aspiring to power sincerely believe that they are the main representatives of public interests, and also that citizens sincerely approve and support their political activities, although this is not true. This conceit of politicians is called “legitimate imposture.”
The best option is when the government is legal and legitimate. In such a situation, the ruling elite relies on the trust of the majority of citizens and it is easier for them to solve the assigned tasks. On the other hand, people who trust their political power voluntarily submit to its decisions and contribute to the achievement of intended goals without feeling coerced.

3.5. POLITICAL POWER AND POLITICAL DOMINATION.
One of the key concepts in political science is the concept of “political domination”. It cannot be seen as domination, oppression, suppression, etc.
Political domination is the structuring of power relations in society, when conditions are created (a system of institutions) so that some have the opportunity to issue decrees and orders, and others - to execute them.
Power and dominance are closely related. But not all power means dominance. You can seize power, you can proclaim the sovereignty of power in a certain territory or in a particular country. However, if appropriate power structures are not created there, and a significant part of the population does not obey this “proclaimed” authority, then political domination will not arise there. Domination presupposes that power takes institutional forms, creates sustainable system political governance in which some govern and others obey.
The concept of “dominance” presupposes a center and a periphery that actively interact and have corresponding communications, connections and relationships. If the center does not satisfy the political, economic, social “demands” of the periphery, and other connections and relationships become more preferable for it, then the relations of domination and subordination between the center and the periphery begin to weaken. Thus, the uncertain policy of the Federal Government and the President of the Russian Federation in relation to the regions, which took place from the early 90s until 2000, almost led to the collapse of the Russian Federation. Many regions of the Russian Federation (Kaliningrad region, Primorsky Krai, Tatarstan, Chechnya, etc.) began to focus their socio-economic policies on other states to a greater extent.
Power is not only the strength and will of the ruler, but also the awareness of dependence and the willingness to obey the subject. When authorities resort to violence, this is a sure sign that the structured system of domination and subordination is broken. A clear example Such a violation of the system of political domination are the events in Chechnya.

3.6. PRINCIPLES OF POWER SHARED.
Power sharing is the theoretical doctrine and actual practice of sharing power among several political institutions. The essence of separation is to limit (prevent) the absolutism of the power of the monarch, president, parliament and other political institutions.
Attempts to separate powers or limit the power of the sovereign were made already in ancient states. In the Middle Ages, in many European countries, power was divided between the state and the church.
In political theory, the principle of separation of powers was first substantiated in the works of J. Locke (“Essay on Human Reason”, “Two Treatises of Government”). Locke believed that the people were the supreme power. They (the people), with the help of a social contract, establish the state and transfer power to rulers, who divide power into legislative and executive.
The theory of separation of powers was further developed in the works of C. Montesquieu (“On the Spirit of Laws”). He believed that to limit abuses of power and establish the rule of law, power should be divided into legislative, executive and judicial.
In practice, the principle of separation of powers was implemented during the formation of the United States and enshrined in the Constitution of 1787. The essence of this principle is that political power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each branch of government is relatively independent from the others and performs its own specific function. But this is not only a simple distribution of functions between various parts of the state apparatus, but the creation of three relatively independent spheres of power with their own special structures.
The principle of separation of powers is most characteristic of a democratic republican form of government. Legislative power in the republic is exercised by the parliament, elected by citizens for a certain term. The executive branch is carried out by the government, which is formed either by the president (in a presidential republic) or the parliament (in a parliamentary republic). Judicial power is exercised by the organs of the judicial system. The functions of the judiciary include not only administering justice, but also monitoring compliance with laws by the executive and legislative branches of government, as well as protecting the rights of citizens.
To ensure that one branch of government does not encroach on the prerogatives of another, the limits of the competence of each branch are described in detail and enshrined in law, for example, in the Constitution. Thus, a system of “checks and balances” is created, which does not allow any branch of government to usurp all power in the country.

3.7. STRUCTURES OF POLITICAL POWER IN RUSSIA.
According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russia is a democratic, federal legal state with a republican form of government. The basis for the formation of federal relations is the Federative Treaty and the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Vertically, the federal structure of Russia has three levels of public (people's) power: the federal center, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and local self-government. Each level of government has its own exclusive competence, which authorities at a different level of government have no right to interfere with.
Horizontally, political power in the Russian Federation is divided into three main branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Each of these branches of government has its own competence and relative independence from each other.
The legislative power of the Russian Federation is exercised by the Federal Assembly (Parliament), consisting of two chambers: the upper - the Federation Council and the lower - the State Duma.
The Federation Council is a representative and legislative body. It is formed by delegating two representatives from each of the 89 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. One representative is delegated from the representative (legislative) body of the subject of the Russian Federation, the other - from the executive body. The recall of one or another representative from the Federation Council is carried out by decision of the relevant body of the subject of the Russian Federation. The Federation Council expresses the interests of the regions. The Council serves as an intermediary between the President of the Russian Federation and the State Duma when adopting laws. All federal laws adopted by the State Duma are subject to mandatory consideration by the Federation Council. A decision of the Federation Council is considered adopted if a majority of its members vote for it.
The State Duma consists of 450 deputies who are elected for four years and serve on a professional basis. At the same time, 225 deputies are elected from party lists, and another 225 from single-mandate constituencies.
Resolutions of the State Duma are adopted by a majority vote of total number deputies of the State Duma. If a federal law passed by the State Duma by the Federation Council is rejected, both chambers can create a conciliation commission to overcome the disagreements that have arisen. If differences between the chambers on the federal law could not be overcome, then the law is considered adopted if at least two-thirds of the total number of deputies of the State Duma voted during the re-vote.
A law adopted by the State Duma and approved by the Federation Council is sent to the President within five days for signing and promulgation within fourteen days. If the President rejected the law submitted for signature, then the State Duma and the Federation Council can either reconsider and finalize the law, or override the President’s veto by a majority of at least two-thirds of the votes of the total number of members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma. In this case, the President is obliged to sign and promulgate the federal law within seven days.
Executive power in the Russian Federation is exercised by the Government of the Russian Federation. It consists of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman and federal ministers. The Chairman of the Government is appointed by the President of the Russian Federation with the approval of the State Duma.
The Government of the Russian Federation develops and submits to the State Duma the federal budget and ensures its execution; submits to the State Duma a report on the implementation federal budget; ensures the implementation of a unified financial, credit and monetary policy in the Russian Federation; single public policy in the field of culture, science, education, healthcare, social security, ecology; manages federal property; takes measures to ensure the defense of the country, state security, implementation of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation; implements measures to ensure the rule of law, the rights and freedoms of citizens, the protection of property and public order, the fight against crime; exercises other powers vested in him by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation
Justice in the Russian Federation is administered only by the court. Judicial power is exercised through Constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings.

LITERATURE
Degtyarev A.A. Political power as a regulatory mechanism of social communication // Polis, 1996. No. 3.
Zalysin I.Yu. Political violence in the system of power // Social and political journal, 1995. No. 3.
Ilyin M.V., Melville A.Yu. Power // Polis, 1997, No. 6.
Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993). M., 2003.
Ledyaeva V.G. Power: Conceptual analysis // Polis, 2000. No. 1.
Moiseev N. Power of the people and power for the people // Russian Federation 1997. No. 2.
Pimenov R.N. Origin modern power. M., 1996. Political science: Textbook. for universities / Rep. ed. V.D. Perevalov. M., 2001. Pugachev V.P. Political Science: A Student's Handbook. M., 2001. Fetisov A.S. Political power: problems of legitimacy. Social and political magazine. 1995, no. 3.
Khalipov V.F. Introduction to the science of power. M., 1996. Homeleva R.A. The nature of political power. St. Petersburg, 1999

TOPIC 4 POLITICAL ELITES AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

The political elite is a small, relatively privileged, fairly independent, superior group (or set of groups), more or less possessing certain psychological, social and political qualities necessary to manage other people and directly involved in the exercise of state power. People included in the political elite, as a rule, are involved in politics on a professional basis. Elitism as an integral system was formed in the first half of the 20th century. thanks to the works of such scientists as V./Pareto, G. Moschi and R. Michels.
4.1. MODERN ELITE THEORIES.
Currently, there are many schools and directions in the development of the theory of elites. The ideas of Mosca, Pareto, Michels and others, members of the so-called Machiavellian school, have the following common features:
recognition of the elitism of any society, its division into a ruling creative minority and a passive majority;
special psychological qualities of the elite (natural gift and upbringing);
group cohesion and elite self-awareness, self-perception
special layer;
the legitimacy of the elite, recognition by the masses of its right to leadership;
structural constancy of the elite, its power relations. Although the personal composition of the elite is constantly changing, the positions of dominance and subordination remain fundamentally base;
the formation and change of elites occurs during the struggle for power.
In addition to the Machiavellian school, there are many other elite theories in modern political science and sociology. For example, the value theory proceeds from the fact that the elite is the most valuable element of society and its dominant position meets the interests of the entire society, because it is the most productive part of society. According to pluralistic concepts, there are many elites in society in various spheres of life. There is competition between the elites, which allows the masses to control the activities of the elites and prevent the formation of a single dominant group.
The political elite is divided into two main categories. The first group includes officials government agencies and workers of party and movement apparatuses. They are appointed to their positions by the heads of organizations. Their role in the political process is reduced mainly to preparing political decisions and legal registration decisions already made.
The second category includes public politicians for whom politics is not only a profession, but also a vocation. They are not appointed to positions, but win their place in the political structure through open political struggle.
In addition, the political elite is divided into ruling and opposition, high, middle and administrative. In general, the elite is a necessary element in the organization and management of any society, any social community.

4.2. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
A leader is a person (group) who takes on the role of head, leader of any social group, political party, organization, society as a whole, an athlete leading a race.
Leadership can be formal, that is, officially recognized and legally formalized, or it can be non-formal.
A leader is a person who, due to certain reasons and circumstances, is endowed with a certain amount of authority in order to formulate and express the interests and goals of other people, and to mobilize them for certain actions. How effectively he will fulfill the responsibilities assigned to him depends to a large extent on the personal qualities of the leader himself.
It is usually believed that in order to fulfill his functions, a leader must have the following qualities: competence, mental flexibility, courage, determination, the ability to convince others that he is right, mobilize people for certain actions, the ability to select and place people, and have “charisma” and a sense of foresight, the ability and courage to take responsibility not only for oneself personally, but also for others.

4.3. TYPOLOGY OF POLITICAL LEADERS.
M. Weber identifies three main types of leadership: traditional, charismatic, rational-legal or democratic.
Traditional leadership is based on political traditions, for example, the crown prince becomes king even if he does not have the qualities of a leader. The basis of its legitimacy is its elite origins.
Charismatic leadership presupposes the exceptional personal qualities of the leader himself, which he actually possesses or which are attributed to him by those around him and are inflated in every possible way by the media. Charismatic leaders were V. Lenin, I. Stalin, A. Hitler, Mao Zedong, A. Khomeini and others. The basis for the legitimacy of a charismatic leader is his superiority over others.
Rational-legal (democratic) leadership is based on the legal framework existing in society. For example, in accordance with constitutional norms, citizens elect the president of their country, entrusting him with the highest post in the state for a certain period of time. The basis of his legitimacy is his presidential status (public office).
Political leaders can combine several types of leadership at once. For example, a rational-legal leader may also have charismatic qualities (De Gaulle - France, Roosevelt - USA).
According to American scholar Margaret Hermann, when considering leadership, the following factors must be taken into account:
the character of the leader himself;
properties of its constituents (adherents, voters);
the relationship between the leader and his constituents;
specific situation in which leadership is exercised.
Taking into account these factors, M. Hermann identifies four
type of leadership:
A standard-bearer leader who has his own vision of reality, “his own dream,” for the sake of which he carries out his leadership and strives to captivate others.
A servant leader who strives to serve as a spokesperson for his followers.

A leader-trader who has the ability to convince his supporters to “buy” his plans and ideas, and to involve people in their implementation.
A firefighter leader is a leader who reacts to problems (situations) that have already arisen, i.e. engaged in "firefighting".
IN real life(according to M. Hermann) most leaders use all four images of leadership in different orders and combinations.
Based on their leadership style, leaders are divided into three main types: authoritarian, democratic and liberal.
4.4. THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP (OR HOW TO BECOME A LEADER).
There are various theories that explain the phenomenon of leadership. For example, trait theory explains the nature of leadership in terms of the outstanding qualities of individuals.
The situational concept tends to believe that a leader owes his “birth” largely to the situation. For example, " the right person"turned out to be at the "right time" in " in the right place" In other words, he managed to assess the situation and did not miss his chance. But here it is necessary that the potential leader himself is “ripe” for the situation that has arisen.
Constituent theory views leadership as a special relationship between a leader and constituents (activists, followers, voters who support a given leader). According to this theory, a leader must focus on the interests and needs of that group, those social strata that are ready to support him, which in essence make him a leader.
Psychological concepts of leadership can be divided into two main areas. According to the first, the “mass” person has a need for authority and a patron. The absence of a leader - a hero - for many people becomes almost a tragedy. And such people intensively look for idols for themselves and sometimes create heroes even from mediocre people.
The second direction of the psychological concept explains the phenomenon of leadership by the existence of a certain type of individuals predisposed to authoritarianism and constantly striving for power. Often these people have certain inferiority complexes and in order to somehow compensate for them, they strive to prove themselves by rising above others (E. Fromm).
Sociological concepts explain the phenomenon of leadership by the functional necessity of the social system. Any social structure (community, society) can function stably only if there is a certain management system. The leader is objectively a necessary element of the management system (T. Parsons).
To classify leadership, the typology of political dominance proposed by M. Weber is also used: traditional leadership, charismatic, legal or democratic.
FUNCTIONS OF A POLITICAL LEADER.
The functions of a political leader are very diverse. They depend on the society and the state in which he has to govern, on the specific tasks facing the country, on the alignment of political forces. The most important of these functions are:
Integration of society, social community, class, party, etc. based on common goals, values, political ideas.
Determination of strategic guidelines in the development of society and the state.
Participation in the process of developing and making political decisions, identifying ways and methods of implementing program goals.
Mobilization of the masses to achieve political goals. Social arbitration, support for order and legality.
Communication between the authorities and the masses, strengthening channels of political and emotional communication with citizens, for example, through the media or during various public events, including during election campaigns.
Legitimization of power.
Literature
Artemov G.P. Political sociology. M., 2002. Blondin P. Political
leadership. M., 1992. Vasily M.L., Vershinin M.S. Political science. M., 2001.
Gaman-Golutvin O.V. Political elite - definition of basic concepts //
Political studies. 2000. No. 3.
Gaman O. Regional elites modern Russia: touches to the portrait // Dialogue, 1996. No. 8.
Karabushenko P.L. Political education for the formation of the elite // Polis, 2000. No. 4.
Lenin V.I. Childhood disease of “leftism” in communism // Pol. collected works T. 41.
Machiavelli N. Sovereign. M., 1990.
Maltsev V. A. Fundamentals of political science. M., 2002.
Mills R. The Power Elite. M., 1959.
Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. M., 1990.

TOPIC 5 POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND REGIMES.
STATE.

One of the broadest categorical concepts in political science, providing a systematic description of political phenomena and processes in close connection and interaction with the environment, is the concept of a political system. In its broadest interpretation, this concept includes everything that is related to politics.
5.1. STRUCTURE OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF SOCIETY
Subjects of political activity are classes, nations, other social communities, political organizations, individuals.
Political relations in society - relations of classes, nations, other social communities, as well as individuals who are subjects of political relations
Political organization of society - political institutions, public institutions, i.e. the controlling part of the political system The political consciousness of society - political ideologies, morality, traditions, norms of socio-political life.

The political system consists of a number of subsystems: institutional (the state and its bodies, political parties and pressure groups, the media, the church, etc.); normative (socio-political norms of a legal and non-legal nature, political traditions and rituals, etc.); communicative (all possible forms of interaction both within the system (for example, parties - state, pressure groups - parties, etc.), and between the political system and economic sphere, as well as between the political system of one country and the political systems of other countries);
functional (the dynamics of political life, the totality of means and methods of exercising power).

The main purpose of the political system is the leadership and management of public affairs.
Political leadership is the determination of strategic goals and prospects for social development, management is their implementation.
The political system, in all the diversity of its structural elements and functions, acts as a means of social integration and containment of the destructive influence of social differences on the functioning of the social organism as a contradictory but unified whole.

5.2.MAIN FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS

The functional side of the political system is covered by the concept of “political regime”.
In political science, the following typology of political regimes is most common:
A totalitarian political regime is a regime of “all-consuming rule”, which interferes infinitely in the lives of citizens, including all their activities within the scope of its management and compulsory regulation.
The “generic characteristics” of this regime are usually identified as:
1. the presence of a single mass party led by a charismatic leader, as well as the actual merger of party and state structures. This is a kind of “party-state”, where the central party apparatus is in first place in the power hierarchy, and the state acts as a means of implementing the party program; monopolization and centralization of power, when political values ​​such as subordination and loyalty to the “party-state” are primary in comparison with material, religious, aesthetic values ​​in the motivation and assessment of human actions. Within the framework of this regime, the line between the political and non-political spheres of life (“the country as a single camp”) disappears. All life activities, including the level of private and personal life, are strictly regulated. The formation of government bodies at all levels is carried out through closed channels and bureaucratic means;
2. “unique power” of the official ideology, which through massive and targeted indoctrination (media, education, propaganda) is imposed on society as the only correct, true way of thinking. At the same time, the emphasis is not on individual, but on “cathedral” values ​​(state, race, nation, clan). The spiritual atmosphere of society is distinguished by actual intolerance of dissent and “other action” according to the principle “those who are not with us are against us”;
3. a system of physical and psychological terror, a police state regime, where the basic “legal” principle is dominated by the principle “only what is ordered by the authorities is allowed, everything else is prohibited.”

Totalitarian regimes traditionally include communist and fascist regimes.
An authoritarian regime is a non-democratic political system, characterized by a regime of personal power and “arbitrary” dictatorial methods of government.
Among the “generic” signs of this regime:
1. power is unlimited, uncontrollable by citizens and is concentrated in the hands of one person or group of persons. This could be a tyrant, a military junta, a monarch, etc.;
2. reliance (potential or real) on strength. An authoritarian regime may not resort to mass repression and may even be popular among broad sections of the population. However, in principle, he can allow himself any actions towards citizens in order to force them to obey;
3. monopolization of power and politics, preventing political opposition and 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. Replenishment of management personnel is carried out through co-optation, and not through electoral competition; There are no constitutional mechanisms for succession and transfer of power. Changes in power often occur through coups using armed forces and violence;
5. refusal of total control over society, non-interference or limited intervention in non-political spheres, and above all in the economy. The authorities are primarily concerned with issues of ensuring their own security, public order, defense and foreign policy, although they can also influence strategy economic development, pursue an active social policy without destroying the mechanisms of market self-regulation.
In this regard, an authoritarian regime is often called a way of displaying limited moralism: “Everything is allowed except politics.”
Authoritarian regimes can be divided into strictly authoritarian, moderate and liberal. There are also such types as populist authoritarianism, which is based on egalitarian-oriented masses, as well as 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;
Technocracy;
Personal tyrannies.

A democratic regime is a regime in which power is exercised by a freely expressing majority. Democracy translated from Greek means literally the power of the people or democracy.
The initial basic principles of democracy, without which this form of human coexistence is practically impossible, are:
a) popular sovereignty, i.e. the people are the primary bearer of power. All power is from the people and is delegated to them. This principle
does not involve political decisions being made directly by the people, as, for example, in a referendum. It only assumes that all bearers of state power received their power functions thanks to the people, that is, directly through elections (deputies of parliament or the president) or indirectly through representatives elected by the people (a government formed and subordinate to parliament);
b) free elections of government officials, which presuppose the presence of at least three conditions: freedom to nominate candidates as a consequence of freedom of formation and functioning of political parties; freedom of suffrage, i.e. universal and equal suffrage based on the principle of “one person, one vote”; freedom of voting, perceived as a means of secret voting and equality for all in receiving information and the opportunity to conduct propaganda during the election campaign;
c) subordination of the minority to the majority with strict respect for 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 replace, based on the results of new elections, the former majority in power;
d) implementation of the principle of separation of powers. Three branches of government -
legislative, executive and judicial - have such powers and such practice that the two “corners” of this unique “triangle”, if necessary, can 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 - necessary condition democracy;
e) constitutionalism and 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. it is rational. The legal principle of democracy: “Everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted.”
Democratic regimes include:
presidential republics;
parliamentary republics;
parliamentary monarchies.
REGIMES: nature and measures of exercise of power; people's attitude to power; status of horizontal structures; the nature of the prohibitions; ideals of power; ideals of political behavior.
DEMOCRATIC. The power is representative in accordance with the law; the choice of specific holders of power by the people; horizontal social structures are the basis of the political system; everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted; morality; observance of laws; morality, law-abiding, professionalism, activity.
LIBERAL. Dialogue between the authorities and independent groups, but its result is determined by the authorities; the influence of society on government; expansion of any organizations other than those claiming power; everything is allowed except a change of power; morality, competence, strength; activity, critical conformism, professionalism.
AUTHORITARIAN The emergence of social structures uncontrolled by the authorities; alienation of the people from power; it is possible to exist in professional spheres, but not of a state nature; things that are not related to politics are allowed; competence, strength; professionalism, obedience, lack of rights.
TOTALITARIAN General unlimited control and violence; merging public consciousness with power; destruction of any horizontal structures; Only that is allowed. what is ordered by the authorities; omnipotence; enthusiasm, typicality.

The central institution and power core of any political regime is the state. What do we mean by the term "state"? Historically, the state is an institution for the political expression of the social need for ordering and centralization. In the “war of all against all,” people would simply destroy each other if such an instrument for ensuring the integrity of society as the state had not arisen. According to one of the Russian philosophers, the state does not exist to create heaven on earth, but to ensure that earthly life does not completely turn into hell.
From this point of view, the state can be defined as a social organization that has ultimate power over all people living within the boundaries of a certain territory, and has as its main goal the solution common problems and ensuring the common good while maintaining, above all, order. A distinctive feature of the state is the monopoly on what is legitimate, i.e. stipulated by law, coercion and violence. This is also a monopoly right to levy taxes in order to cover expenses associated with the activities of the state and the maintenance of a special layer of government officials. This is a monopoly on the issue of banknotes, the legal personification of the nation, i.e. its external representation as a sovereign subject of international affairs, etc.

5.3. DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE STATE
Signs:
Coercion
State coercion is primary and
priority over the right to coerce other entities within a given state and is carried out by specialized bodies in situations determined by law.
Sovereignty
The state has supreme and unlimited power over all persons and organizations operating within its historical boundaries.
Universality
State power is a “universal” supreme power, acting on behalf of the entire society and extending its influence over the entire given territory.
Attributes:
Territory
Defined by the boundaries separating the spheres of sovereignty of individual states
Population -
Subjects of the state to whom its power extends and under whose protection they are even abroad
Device -
The system of bodies and the presence of a special “class of officials” through which the state functions and develops
In structural, institutional terms, the state appears as an extensive network of institutions and organizations that embody three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial.

TOPIC 6. STATE
Legislative power at the macro level is represented by parliament, which establishes laws, that is, develops and approves new ones, supplements, changes or abolishes existing ones. In a democracy, parliament also carries out the function of making the most important political decisions. Being elected directly by the people, he acts as an exponent of the people's will and is for this reason the most important legitimizing body.

Scheme of parliament formation

The executive branch is represented by the government and administrative and management bodies. The structure of executive government bodies includes ministries and departments, control and supervisory authorities, armed forces, law enforcement agencies, state security service, etc. This part of government in a democracy carries out the main political decisions made by the legislature. At the same time, the government has the constitutional right to make its own political decisions and by-laws related to the implementation of its management functions.
The judicial power is represented by a system of judicial bodies and a statute of judges who are independent and subject only to the law. The court personifies the highest legality in the state and plays main role in resolving conflicts that arise in various areas of life.
The state apparatus is a part of the mechanism of the state, which is a set of state bodies vested with authority to exercise state power.

Let's imagine the structure of the state apparatus using the example of the Russian Federation.

Regardless of the type, the state performs the following functions:
protection political system;
prevention and elimination of socially dangerous conflicts;
maintaining a common domestic policy for the country as a system of its specific manifestations (social, economic, financial, cultural, etc.);
protecting the country’s interests at the international level (foreign policy functions), etc.

From the point of view of the form of government (i.e. the method of organizing supreme power), there are two main types of state: monarchy and republic.

Monarchies are:
absolute, when all power, unlimited by anyone or anything, belongs to the monarch (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates);
dualistic (dual), where the power of the monarch in the field of legislation is limited by a representative body (parliament), for example Jordan, Morocco, etc.;
parliamentary, where the monarch is, as it were, a national symbol and rather reigns than rules. In this case, real power is concentrated in the hands of the government and parliament (Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, etc.).
Republics are divided into:
- presidential (the classic example is the USA), when the president, elected, most often directly by the people, simultaneously acts as the head of state and head of government. He leads the internal and foreign policy, is the supreme commander of the armed forces. The president appoints cabinet ministers who are responsible to him and not to parliament.
In a presidential republic, the legislative and executive branches of government are strictly separated and have considerable independence. Parliament cannot pass a vote of no confidence in the government, and the president does not have the right to dissolve parliament. Only in the case of serious unconstitutional actions or crimes on the part of the president can he be impeached and removed from power early (the case of President R. Nixon).
The relationship between parliament and the president is based on a system of checks, balances and interdependence. Parliament can limit the president's actions through laws and through budget approval. The president usually has the right of suspensive veto over parliamentary decisions;
- parliamentary, when the government is formed on a parliamentary basis (usually by a parliamentary majority) and is only formally responsible to parliament. If necessary, the latter can express a vote of no confidence in the government, which entails either his resignation or the dissolution of parliament and the holding of early elections.
The government has executive power, and often legislative initiative, as well as the right to petition the president to dissolve parliament. Unlike a presidential republic, in a parliamentary one, membership in the government is compatible with a parliamentary mandate. Although the head of government (prime minister, chancellor) is not officially the head of state, in reality he is the first person in the political hierarchy. The president, as the head of state, most often performs only representative functions (Italy, Germany, etc.);

Mixed (semi-presidential: Austria, Portugal, France, etc.) They have strong presidential power, which is combined with effective parliamentary control over government activities. Later he is responsible both to parliament and to the president. Russia also belongs to a related type, combining the features of both a parliamentary and presidential republic.
Based on the territorial structure, the following are distinguished:
a unitary state in which there is one constitution, unified systems of supreme authorities, law and justice, and unified citizenship. The administrative-territorial parts of such a state do not have political independence;

Federation, i.e. a union state consisting of state entities that have a certain legal and political independence. The constituent parts of the federation (republics, states, provinces, lands, etc.) are its subjects and have their own administrative-territorial division. Each subject of the federation has its own constitution, corresponding to the union one, issues legislative acts that do not contradict federal ones, etc.;

A confederation, in other words, a union of states that maintain an independent (sovereign) existence and unite for the purpose of coordinating their activities on certain issues, most often in the field of defense, foreign policy, transport and communications, etc. Confederations are usually short-lived.

When characterizing a democratic state, the following concepts are distinguished:
a legal state in which the constitution and law prevail. The state itself and all social communities, as well as the individual, respect the law and are in the same position in relation to it;

A social state is a state that guarantees its citizens a certain level of social security and safety worthy of a person, and also strives to create relatively equal starting opportunities for everyone.

Civil society is a set of social entities: groups, collectives, united by specific economic, ethnic, cultural, religious interests, implemented outside the sphere of state activity.

IN modern science civil society is defined as autonomous socio-economic life. Collectively it is presented economic organizations, enterprises, cooperatives, charitable organizations, cultural, ethnic, religious associations, interest clubs. Civil society performs the functions of a “mediator” between the state and the individual. It is this that protects the individual from the state, ensures guarantees of human rights, and puts the activities of the state under control. It also becomes a guarantor of the stability of the rule of law.

The prerequisites for the formation of civil society are: the transition to a market economy, the emergence of specific group interests, increasing the level and quality of life, the growth of the “middle class” of the educated and socially active part of society, the creation of legal guarantees for the free activity of independent public associations, mastery of universal human norms and values.

TOPIC 7. POLITICAL PARTIES AND PRESSURE GROUPS.
What are parties as key subjects of the “political market”, producers of political goods?
In the Marxist tradition, parties are viewed as the highest form of organization of a particular class or layer, covering its most active part, reflecting its fundamental political interests and pursuing long-term class goals. Parties as political organizations directly participate in socio-political life, express their attitude towards the existing government, and are published in the name of preserving and strengthening this government or changing it.
In the liberal democratic tradition, parties are interpreted as organized political forces that unite citizens of the same political tradition and serve to gain or participate in power in order to realize the goals of their adherents. By embodying the human right to political association with other people, parties reflect the general group interests and goals of heterogeneous segments of the population (social, national, religious, etc.). Through this institution, people put forward group demands to the state and at the same time receive requests from it for support in resolving certain political issues.
From this perspective, parties are institutionalized instruments for shaping and representing the political aspirations and goals of social class forces. These are a kind of intermediaries between the public and government authorities.
There are usually four main characteristics of a batch.
Firstly, every party is the bearer of a certain ideology or, at least, expresses a specific orientation of the vision of the world and man.
Secondly, this is a relatively long-term association, i.e. an organization with a specific structure and territorial dimension (national, regional, local, and sometimes international).
Thirdly, the goal of every party is to gain power or participate in it along with other parties.
Fourthly, each party strives to secure the support of the people - from inclusion in its members to the formation of a wide circle of sympathizers.
The internal groups and associations within the party are: party leaders; party bureaucracy;
party leaders
party bureaucracy
brain headquarters, party ideologists;
party activist;
ordinary party members.
If a party is successful in elections, this number also includes:
"Party members are legislators";
"members of the party are members of the government."
A significant role in determining the political weight and influence of a party is also played by those generally outside its framework:
"party electorate", i.e. those who vote for a party in elections;
“party patrons” who provide the party with some support.
In general, according to the type of structural connections, a party can be represented by three concentric circles:

From the priority goal of the party - the struggle for power - follow its functions such as:
development of an ideological doctrine and program as a kind of “declaration of intent”;
political socialization of the masses, i.e. formation of public opinion, involvement of citizens in political life, ensuring their support for the goals and program of the party;
preparation and promotion of leaders and elites for all levels of the political system, etc.

There are many criteria by which political parties are classified:
on social grounds, there are class, inter-class (inter-class) parties, and “grab them all” parties;
By organizational structure and the nature of membership - personnel and mass, with clear and formally defined principles of membership and with free membership, with individual and collective membership, etc.;
in relation to the place in the political system - legal, semi-legal, illegal, ruling and opposition, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary;
according to target and ideological guidelines, methods and forms of action - radical, liberal, conservative; communist, socialist and social democratic; Christian, etc.

Multi-party system is the soul of democracy. Democracy minus a multi-party system is nothing more than dictatorship. The benefit of a multi-party system is that:
Firstly, political issues receive comprehensive coverage. Every social need finds its defenders and critics;
secondly, there is an opposition that does not forgive the authorities for their mistakes. This curbs bureaucratization and forces the government to act effectively.
The second most massively organized subject of the political market are interest groups and pressure groups. This concept refers to organizations of various types, whose members, without claiming supreme political power in the system, try to influence it to ensure their specific interests. This is their fundamental difference from political parties.
These groups include: workers' unions;
farmer (peasant) organizations and unions;
professional associations of entrepreneurs;
feminist, environmental, human rights, pacifist, etc. movements;
veterans' unions Operates on the basis of creation I;
philosophical clubs and societies, etc.

Literature

Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. M., 1993.
Arendt X. Origins of totalitarianism. M., 1996.
Butenko A.P. From totalitarianism to democracy: general and specific // Socio-political magazine. M., 1995. No. 6.
Vasily M.L., Vershinin M.S. Political science. M., 2001.
Kamenskaya G.V., Rodionov A.L. Political systems of our time. M., 1994.
LedyaevVT. Forms of power: typological analysis // Political studies. 2000. No. 2.
Pugachev V.P. Political Science: Student's Handbook. M., 2001.
Soloviev E.G. The phenomenon of totalitarianism in the political thought of this and the West. M., 1997.
Sumbatyan Yu.T. Authoritarianism as a category of political science // Social and humanitarian knowledge. M., 1999. No. 6.
TocquevilleA. Democracy in America. M., 1992.
TsigankovAL. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. M., 1995.

TOPIC 8. POLITICAL CULTURE AND POLITICAL SITUALIZATION

Political culture can be considered as a theoretically determined qualitative characteristic of the political sphere of society, including the level of development of the subject of politics, his political activity and the results of this activity, “objectified” in the corresponding socio-political institutions and relations. In a narrow sense, it is a complex of ideas of a particular national or socio-political community about the world of politics. Just as culture as a whole defines and prescribes certain norms and rules of behavior in various spheres of life and life situations, political culture defines and prescribes norms, behavior and “rules of the game” in the political sphere. It provides the individual with guidelines for political behavior and the collective with a system of values ​​and orientation that ensures unity.
An analysis of the state of political culture makes it possible, for example, to explain why institutions of state power that are identical in form in different countries ah have different functional purposes, or why institutions of power that are democratic in form and constitutional norms in individual countries can comfortably coexist with a totalitarian regime of power.
Political culture includes the characteristics of of this company a set of political knowledge, norms, rules, customs, stereotypes of political behavior, political assessments, political experience and traditions of political life, political education and political socialization.
Political culture is a certain way of thinking and a set of ideas about the world of politics, about what is acceptable for the majority of the population and what will be rejected, despite the efforts of the initiators of political innovation. For example, if the majority of members of society are carriers of a patriarchal political culture, then for them totalitarian or authoritarian regimes of power can be recognized as completely legitimate. And representatives of a democratic political culture will perceive such regimes of power as political tyranny.

8.1. STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL CULTURE.
Political culture is a complex phenomenon consisting of a whole complex of interrelated components. Let's consider some of them: Value-normative - political feelings, values, ideals, beliefs, norms, rules.
Cognitive - political knowledge, methods of political thinking, abilities, skills
Evaluative - attitude towards the political regime, political phenomena, events, leaders.
Attitudinal - stable personal guidelines for behavior, orientation towards certain actions in certain conditions.
Behavioral - readiness for certain actions in a certain situation, and, if necessary, participation in appropriate actions.
In addition to the components, we can also distinguish levels of political culture:
Worldview level - our ideas about politics and its various aspects.
Civil level - determining one's political status in accordance with existing opportunities.
Political level - determining one’s attitude towards the political regime, towards one’s allies and opponents.
Attitudes towards politics and the political regime may change depending on certain events. People belonging to different social strata and classes, ethnic groups and nations, etc. evaluate events differently. Therefore, the political culture of a society is usually divided into a number of subcultures. For example, the subculture of one region may differ significantly from the subculture of another; one social group - from another, etc. In addition, new and traditional components interact in every culture.
8.2. FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL CULTURE.
Political culture plays an important role in the formation and development of political institutions and relationships.
Political culture performs the following social and political functions in society:
value-normative - the creation of general “rules of the game” in the political sphere of society;
identification and integration - understanding of common belonging to a particular social group or society as a whole;
normative and regulatory - the development of certain norms and styles of political behavior, ways for citizens to protect their interests and exercise control over power;
motivational - the ability to choose certain motives for one’s political activity (passivity);
socialization - the assimilation of the basic elements of political culture, the acquisition of social and political qualities that give the individual the opportunity to freely navigate and function in the political sphere;
communicative - ensuring the interaction of all subjects and participants in the political process on the basis of common norms, values, symbols, patterns of semantic perception of political phenomena.
8.3. TYPES OF POLITICAL CULTURE.
Political culture, during its historical evolution, goes through a complex process of formation and development. Each historical era, each type of political system and social community is characterized by its own special type of political culture.
Patriarchal type - for this type characteristic features are: low competence in political problems, lack of interest of citizens in political life, orientation towards local values ​​- community, clan, tribe, etc. The concept of the political system of society and the ways of its functioning is completely absent. Community members focus on leaders, shamans and other, in their opinion, significant personalities.
The submissive type is oriented toward the interests of the state, but the personal activity is low. This type is good at mastering executive roles and functions, and therefore is easily manipulated by various kinds of politicians, officials, and political adventurers. Individual political activity of this type is quite low, interest in politics is weak.
The concept of a political system is already present, but the idea of ​​​​the possibilities of somehow influencing the government is absent.
Activist type - involves the active involvement of citizens in the political process, participation in the selection of government bodies and the desire to influence the development and adoption of political decisions. Citizens' interest in politics is quite high; they are well informed about the structure and functions of the political system and strive to realize their political interests with the help of constitutional rights.

8.4. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION.
Socialization is the process of an individual’s assimilation of social norms and cultural values ​​inherent in the society in which he lives. Political socialization is part of general socialization. Its specificity lies in the fact that in the process of political socialization, the individual acquires the norms and values ​​of predominantly political culture, patterns of political behavior, knowledge and ideas about the political sphere of society.
Political socialization is the process of integration (entry) of a person into the political life of society.
A feature of the first stage of political socialization is that the child assimilates certain political norms and cultural patterns, but does not yet understand their essence and meaning.
At the second stage (the school period of life), the individual realizes his connection with society and politics, acquires general ideas about the political system and political regimes. Based on the acquired political knowledge, ideas and general social experience, the individual develops a political identity and basic political attitudes.
The most crucial period in an individual’s life is the third stage of political socialization. This is the period when a person reaches 18 years of age and, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, becomes a full citizen, capable of electing various government bodies and being elected to certain government structures. However, even during this period, the individual may face some restrictions in the political sphere of activity. For example, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens who have reached the age of 35 and have permanently resided in Russia for at least 10 years can be elected to the presidency of the Russian Federation. The legislation of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation also provides for some other restrictions for people applying for certain elective positions in government structures.
The process of replacing previously acquired knowledge, norms, values ​​and roles by an individual with new ones is called resocialization.

LITERATURE
Almond G., Verba
C, Civic culture and stability of democracy \\Political research. 1992.№4
Artemov G.P. Political sociology. M., 2002.
GazhdievK.V. Political culture: conceptual aspect // Political studies. 1991.№6
Gradinar I.B. Political culture: Worldview dimension. 4.1. St. Petersburg, 1996
Ionin L.G. Culture and social structure // Sociological studies. 1996. No. 2,3.
Kamenets A.V., Onufrienko G.F., Shubakov A.G. Political culture of Russia. M., 1997.
Kamenskaya G.V. Political culture of SA//International economics and international relationships. 1993.№4
Kozyrev G.I. Introduction to political science. M., 2003
Maltsev V. A. Fundamentals of Political Science M., 2002.
Pivovarov Yu.S. Political culture. Methodical essay. M., 1996.
Political science. Textbook For universities / Rep. ed. V.D. Perevalov. M., 2001. Pugachev V.P. Political Science: A Student's Handbook. M., 2001

TOPIC 9 WORLD POLITICAL PROCESS

9.1. POLITICAL PROCESS: ESSENCE AND STRUCTURE.
The political process is the process of functioning and development of the political system of society. It occurs as a result of the interaction (counteraction) of subjects and participants in politics regarding a certain object (objects). “Subjects” are active actors in the political process, acting consciously and purposefully. “Participants” take part in the process, sometimes without fully realizing the meaning and significance of what is happening. Sometimes they may be involved in certain actions by accident and even against their will. But during the development of certain events, the statuses of “subjects” and “participants” can change places.
The political process consists of both targeted conscious efforts of subjects of political activity (individuals, social groups, political parties, government bodies, etc.), and as a result of interactions that arise spontaneously, regardless of the will and consciousness of the participants in the process. The political process can be represented as a multi-level system consisting of many subsystems and many processes. Typically, political processes are divided into basic and peripheral.
Basic political processes involve various ways of including broad sections of the population (directly or through representative bodies - parties, movements, etc.) in political relations with the state regarding the implementation of certain socio-political demands. In such cases, we are essentially talking about the participation of large social communities in political governance. Basic can also be called political processes, as a result of which political decisions are made that affect the interests of large social communities, society as a whole, or processes aimed at developing and changing the political system.
Peripheral political processes can develop at the regional or local level of socio-political interaction; can reveal the dynamics of the formation of individual political associations (parties, blocs, pressure groups, etc.). Basic and peripheral political processes, as a rule, have a stimulating influence on each other. For example, if a peripheral process touches on current problems of “big” politics, or the intervention of central authorities is necessary to solve the problems raised by it, then in these cases the peripheral political process can turn into a basic one. And, conversely, a process that has arisen as a basic one can be “lowered” to be solved at a peripheral level, if appropriate.
Political processes are also divided into global and partial. In global processes, the cumulative actions of political subjects can radically influence the functioning, change and development of the political system as a whole. Partial processes can affect a certain sphere of life or some stage (stage) of a global process.
All political processes (global, private, basic, peripheral) are explicit (open) and shadow (hidden). For example, a political rally demanding the resignation of the government is an obvious (open) process. The government's decision to increase tax duties on imported goods is also an open process. But lobbying for a law in the Duma by a group of deputies is a hidden (shadow) process. In the political systems of a number of countries there is even such a thing as a “shadow cabinet”. This is a group of influential persons (part of the political elite) who do not hold official government positions, but whose opinions significantly influence political decision-making.
Political processes, depending on certain subjective and objective factors, can have different modes of occurrence:
the mode of operation is the simple reproduction of recurring political relations;
development mode is an adequate response of power structures and mechanisms to new social demands and corresponding changes in the political system;
regime of decline - the collapse of the integrity of the political system due to the fact that the decisions it makes are no longer able to adequately respond to changed relations, and the political regime itself loses stability and legitimacy.
To “evaluate” any political process, the following steps must be performed:
find out the content of its object - the problem being solved;
determine the composition of participants and their interests;
study the nature of the relationship between the participants in the process;
determine the scope and possible outcome of the process.

9.2. SUBJECTS AND PARTICIPANTS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
The concepts of “subject” and “participant” are not always identical.
A subject is an active author of the political process, a bearer of substantive and practical political activity, capable of influencing the object of policy.
The subject of politics can be an individual, a social group and organization, a political organization and movement, political institutions and government structures; social community (class, nation, ethnic or religious group, society); political elites or counter-elites; state, groups of states, world community.
Some researchers propose to classify policy subjects on various grounds:
Subjects of the social level: classes, ethnic groups, groups, individual, electorate, mafia, military-industrial complex, commercial bourgeoisie, etc.
Institutional subjects of politics: state, party, trade union, parliament, president, university, etc.
Functional subjects of politics: army, church, opposition, lobby, media, transnational corporations, etc.
Participants in the political process are individuals, groups, organizations, work collectives, social communities, etc., taking part in certain political events or political life in general.

9.3. PERSONALITY AS A SUBJECT OF POLITICS.
Personality is a set (system) of socially significant qualities that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society, as a product of social development.
A personality as a subject of politics is an individual who takes an active and conscious part in political activities and has a certain influence on the political process. There are several options for individual participation (non-participation) in politics:
Active participation when politics is a profession, calling and/or meaning of life for an individual.
Situational participation, when an individual participates in politics by solving his personal or group problems, or by fulfilling his civic duty, for example, by taking part in elections or expressing the position of his social group at a political rally.
Reasoned non-participation as a protest against the current policy.
Mobilization participation, when an individual is forced to take part in certain socio-political events or events. Such participation is most characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
Removal from any political events, reluctance to participate in the political process, due to personal apoliticality and passivity. In the first three options described above, the individual acts as a subject of politics, since to one degree or another he can influence the political process. In the last two options, the individual is not a subject of politics. Apolitical and passive individuals are easily susceptible to political manipulation and, as a rule, become an object in “alien” politics. In such cases, it is appropriate to recall the words that have become an aphorism: “If you do not want to get involved in politics, then politics itself, sooner or later, will deal with you.”
The degree of individual involvement in politics depends on many subjective and objective factors. Let's list some of them:
level of political culture, civic consciousness and individual social activity of the individual;
the degree of infringement of personal and group interests and the desire to protect them;
objectively established conditions and prerequisites stimulating socio-political changes in society;
the actual socio-political and economic situation that has arisen in society (region);
the possession of various types of capital (economic, political, symbolic, etc.), allowing an individual to rely on the support of certain social groups.

9.4. POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
Activity is the conscious actions of people aimed at satisfying their needs, transforming the world around them and their own nature. Human activity is of a deliberate, purposeful nature. Political activity is the conscious, purposeful actions of political subjects pursuing individual, group goals and interests. As a rule, it is the prerogative of political professionals performing their functional duties. At the same time, if political professionals are included in government structures, then their activities should represent a set of organized actions of political subjects aimed at implementing the general objectives of the political system of society. If this activity of political subjects is in opposition to to the ruling regime, then it (the activity) may pursue completely different goals and interests.
The most important categories of political activity are rationality, efficiency and legitimacy. Rationality presupposes the expression of social need, expediency and scientific validity of political goals and methods of achieving them. Efficiency is the real results (visible trends) of political activity. Legitimacy is the approval and support of political activities by the citizens of a country.
But in real life, political activity can be irrational, ineffective and illegitimate. Such a negative result of political activity depends not only on professional qualities political subjects and on their availability of necessary resources, but also on their political motivation. If the ruling political elite, through its political activities, creates the most favorable conditions for a relatively small layer of rich people, ignoring the interests of the rest (for example, as has been done since the early 90s of the 20th century in Russia), then for the majority of citizens of the country and society as a whole, political activity will be irrational, ineffective and illegitimate.
Main types of political activity:
the struggle for political power and authority. This type of political activity is one of the main ones, since possessing power or participating in the implementation of power gives subjects greater opportunities to achieve their intended goals;
participation in the formation and development of the implementation of political decisions;
activity in non-state political institutions (parties, socio-political organizations and movements, etc.);
organization and conduct of mass socio-political events (rallies, demonstrations, strikes, pickets, etc.);
motivated non-participation in certain political events, for example, as a form of protest against policies that do not meet the interests of the author or his social group.
Depending on the direction of action, researchers distinguish three main groups of political activity1:
Activities within the political system itself, such as interactions between political institutions.
The action of the political system in relation to environment, for example, making management decisions with the aim of changing certain relations in society.
Actions of the surrounding social environment aimed at political institutions of power, for example, expressing support or distrust of the government, participation in the formation of institutions of power in elections, etc.
Political activity is also divided into practical and theoretical. Each of these types of activities is determined, as a rule, by the specifics of the political subject.

9.5 POLITICAL RELATIONS.
Political relations arise as a result of the interaction of subjects and participants in the political process regarding the conquest, installation and use of political power.
The subjects of political relations are individuals, social and political groups, organizations and movements, large and small political communities, public and political institutions, and the state. The total object of political relations is political power, which finds its manifestation in all spheres of political life. It (power) is not only the object of political relations, but also a means of their ordering, organization, change, regulation, etc.
The nature of political relations largely depends on the political regime of power. In a totalitarian state, these are relations of a rigid hierarchy of subordination and dependence on the vertical of power. In a democratic society, political (power) relations are to a greater extent designed to perform the functions of management, regulation and control. Here, along with vertical (power) relations, a lot of horizontal connections and relations arise - relations of cooperation, competition, compromise, dialogue, etc.
The existing legal framework, such as the constitution, has a great influence on the formation and development of political relations. The Constitution, as a rule, sets out the methods of interaction and the limits of the powers of the main subjects of politics, and indicates options for resolving possible conflict situations.
The next factor that has a significant impact on political relations is the political culture of the country's citizens. If a patriarchal or submissive political culture predominates in a society, then it is much easier for the ruling elite to manipulate people and form political relations that meet the interests of these elites.
Political relations also depend on the effectiveness and efficiency of the policies pursued in the country, on the behavior and activities of certain policy subjects.

9.6 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION.
In each state, depending on the political regime, on the level of development of civil society and the political culture of citizens, on historical traditions and other factors, one or another form and degree of involvement of citizens in the political process develops. This involvement of ordinary citizens in politics is called political participation.
Political participation should be distinguished from such similar concepts as political activity and political behavior.
Political activity is a set of organized actions of political subjects aimed at realizing the general objectives of the political system. Political activity is the implementation of political strategy and tactics carried out primarily by institutionalized political subjects (government bodies, political parties, pressure groups, etc.). In other words, this is the activity of political professionals performing their functional duties. Although non-professional and non-institutionalized participants cannot be completely excluded from general political activity.
Political behavior reflects the qualitative characteristics of participation and activity, the motivational and emotional component in the actions of an individual or group taking part in a particular political process.
Political participation is the involvement of citizens in the political process, in certain political actions. Here we are talking, first of all, about the participation in politics of ordinary citizens who do not claim the “title” of professional politicians, for example, the participation of ordinary voters in an election campaign.
In political theory, the following reasons are identified for the involvement of individuals and groups in the political process:
rational choice theory - a person seeking to realize his interests seeks to benefit from political participation;
participation as a desire to protect one’s interests, for example, to prevent a reduction in production in a certain industry;
participation as an expression of loyalty to the existing regime of power or as an act of support for a particular political party or movement;
desire for success in life and social recognition through participation in politics;
understanding public duty and exercising one’s own civil rights;
understanding (awareness) of the social significance of the upcoming political event;
mobilization participation - use in various ways coercion or encouragement in order to attract citizens to participate in a particular political event.
There are two main forms of political participation of citizens in the political process: direct and indirect.
Direct is when an individual or group personally participates in a particular political event, for example, in the elections of members of parliament.
Indirect participation is carried out through its representatives. For example, a popularly elected parliament, on behalf of its voters, forms a government, issues laws, that is, carries out political governance of the country. Researchers of the problem divide various types of participation into three main types:
participation-solidarity aimed at supporting the existing political system;
participation demand or protest aimed at partial or radical change in the existing course of development of society;
deviant participation - the use of unconstitutional, including violent, methods with the aim of overthrowing the existing regime.
The role, meaning and forms of political participation largely depend on the type of political system and political regime of power.

9.7 POLITICAL BEHAVIOR.
Political behavior is a qualitative characteristic of political activity and political participation; this is how a person behaves in a particular situation, in a particular political event.
The political behavior of an individual (group) may depend on many factors. Let's list some of them:
Individual emotional and psychological qualities of a subject or participant in the political process. For example, for the behavior of V.V. Zhirinovsky is characterized by such properties as emotional richness, unpredictability, shockingness; for V.V. Putin - prudence, balance in words and actions, external calm.
Personal (group) interest of a subject or participant in political actions. For example, a deputy vigorously lobbies for a bill that interests him, although he is quite passive when discussing other issues.
Adaptive behavior is behavior associated with the need to adapt to the objective conditions of political life. For example, it is difficult to imagine a daredevil who, in a crowd glorifying a political leader (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong), would shout slogans denouncing this leader.
Situational behavior is behavior determined by a specific situation, when the subject or participant in a political action has practically no choice.
Behavior determined by the moral principles and moral values ​​of the political author. For example, Jan Gust, Bruno and many other greatest thinkers could not “give up principles” and became victims of the Inquisition.
The competence of an actor in a particular political situation or political action as a factor of behavior. The essence of “competence” is how well the subject or participant controls the situation, understands the essence of what is happening, knows the “rules of the game” and is able to use them adequately.
Behavior driven by political manipulation. This is when people are “forced” to behave in one way or another through lies, deception, and populist promises.
Violent coercion to a certain type of behavior.

Literature

Artemov T.P. Political sociology. M., 2002.
Bourdieu P. Sociology of politics. M., 1993.
Vyatkin NS Lobbying in German // Polis, 1993. No. 1.
Egorov N Manage the political process more actively. Power in Russia //News: RIA Bulletin, 1996. No. 4.
Kabanenka AL. Political process and political system: sources of self-development // Bulletin of Moscow State University, Series 12. Political sciences. 2001. No. 3. LebonG. Psychology of masses. M., 2000.
Makarenko V.P. Group interests and the government-administrative apparatus: towards research methodology // Socis, 1996. No. 11.
Political science and modern political process. M., 1991.
Pugachev V.P. Political science: Handbook. M., 2001.
Political science: Dictionary-reference book / M.A. Vasilik, M.S. Vershinin et al. M., 2001. Political science. Textbook for universities / Rep. ed. V. D. Perevalov. M., 2001. Political process: Main aspects and methods of analysis. Collection of educational materials / Ed. E.Yu. Meleshkina.M., 2001.
Smirnov V.V., Zotov S. Lobbying in Russia and abroad: political and legal problems // State and Law. 1996.
Modern political process in Russia. Educational and reference manual. Part 1.M., 1995.

BASIC LITERATURE FOR THE COURSE "POLITICAL SCIENCE"

1. Avtsinova G.I. Social-legal state: essence and features of formation. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, No. 3. P. 90-104.
2. Vodolagin A.A. Internet media as an arena of political struggle. // Social Sciences and Modernity. 2002, No. 1. P. 49-67.
3. Dobaev I. Non-governmental religious and political organizations of the Islamic world. // World economy and international relations. 2002, No. 4. P. 91-97.
4. Kolomiytsev V.F. Democratic regime. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, No. 5. P. 88-99.
5. Kretov B.I. Mass media is an element of the political system of society. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, No. 1. P. 101-115.
6. Mirsky G. Did totalitarianism go away with the twentieth century? // World economy and international relations. 2002, No. 1. P. 40-51.
7. Mukhaev R.T. Political science: Textbook for universities. 2nd ed. M.: PRIOR, 2000.
8. Pantin V.I., Lapkin V.V. Evolutionary complexity of political systems: problems of methodology and research. // Policy. 2002, No. 2. P. 6-19.
9. Political science: Textbook for universities./ Rep. ed. V.D. Perevalov. – M.: NORMA-INFRA-M, 2002.
10. Political science: Textbook for universities./ Ed. V.N. Lavrinenko. – M.: UNITY, 2002.
11. Political science: Textbook for universities./ Ed. M.A. Vasilika. – M.: YURIST, 2001
12. Political science: Textbook. manual for universities./ Scientific. ed. A.A. Radugin. 2nd ed. – M.: Center, 2001.
13. Reznik Yu.M. Civil society as a concept. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2002, No. 2. P.140-157.
14. Salenko V.Ya. Trade unions as an organizational system. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, No. 4. P. 85-99.
15. Solovey V.D. The evolution of Russian federalism. // Policy. 2002, No. 3. P. 96-128.
16. Political Science: Textbook /ed. M.A. Vasilika. _ M.: Gardariki, 2006.
17. Political science for technical universities: textbook / Kasyanov V.V., S.I. Samygin. – Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2001.
18. Kravchenko A.I. Political science: textbook / A.I. Kravchenko. – M.: Publishing Center “Academy”, 2001.
19. Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M.: University Book, Logos, 2006.
20. Political Science: Textbook /ed. Achkasova V.A., Gutorovvaa V.A. _ M.: YURAYT, 2006.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE FOR THE COURSE "POLITICAL SCIENCE"

1. Avtsinova G.I. Features of Western and Eastern Christianity and their influence on political processes. // Socio-polit, magazine. 1996, No. 4. P. 222. -
2. Artemyeva O.V. Democracy in Russia and America. // Questions of philosophy. 1996, No. 6. P.104.
3. Weinstein G. Today’s thoughts about the upcoming choice of Russia. // World Economy and Moscow Region. 1998, No. 6. P. 37.
4. Gelman V.Ya. Regional power in modern Russia: institutions, regimes and practices. // Policy. 1998, No. 1. P.87.
5. Golosov G. Ideological development of parties and the field of inter-party competition in the Duma elections of 1995 // World. economics and MO. 1999, No. 3. P. 39.
6. Dibirov A.-N.Z. Is M. Weber's concept of legitimacy outdated? // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2002, No. 3. P. 258-268.
7. Dibirov A.-N.Z., Pronsky L.M. On the nature of political power. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 18 (sociology and political science). 2002, No. 2. P. 48-60.
8. Zimon G. Notes on political culture in Russia. // Questions of philosophy. 1998, no. 7. pp. 23-38.
9. Zolina M.B. The problem of totalitarianism in the political science of totalitarianism I.A. Ilyin. // Socio-political magazine. 1996, no. 5. pp. 183-191. Political magazine. 1996, no. 5. pp. 183-191.
10. Zudin A.Yu. Oligarchy as a political problem of Russian post-communism. // General science and modernity. 1999, No. 1. P. 45.
11. Ilyin M.V., Melville A.Yu., Fedorov Yu.E. Basic categories of political science. // Policy. 1996, no. 4. pp. 157-163.
12. Kalina V.F. Features of the formation of Russian federalism. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 1999, No. 3. P. 223.
13. Karpukhin O.I. Have the youth made their choice? (On the problem of socialization of the younger generation of modern Russia). // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, No. 4. P. 180-192.
14. Kiva A.V. Russian oligarchy: general and special. // Social Sciences and Modernity. 2000, No. 2. P. 18-28.
15. Klepatsky L. Dilemmas of Russian foreign policy. // International life. 2000, No. 7. P. 25-34.
16. Kretov B.I. Political process in Russia. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, No. 5. P. 69-87.
17. Lebedeva M.M. The formation of a new political structure of the world and Russia’s place in it. // Policy. 2000, No. 6. P. 40-50.
18. Levashova A.V. Modern international system: globalization or westernization? // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2000, pp. 252-266.
19. Mechanic A.G. Financial oligarchy or bureaucracy? Myths and realities of Russian political power. // Society science and modernity. 1999, No. 1. P. 39.
20. Mirsky G. Did totalitarianism go away with the twentieth century? // World economy and international relations. 2002, No. 1. P. 40-51.
21. Mchedlov M.P., Filimonov E.G. Socio-political positions of believers in Russia. // Socis. 1999, No. 3. P. 103.
22. At the Kremlin's beck and call? // Russia today. 1999, No. 16. P. 14.
23. Nesterenko A.V. Democracy: the problem of the subject. // Social Sciences and
24. Pilipenko V.A., Strizoe A.L. Political power and society: outlines of research methodology. // Socis. 1999, No. 3. P.103-107.
25. Polivaeva N.P. Typology of society and political consciousness. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series 18 (sociology and political science). 2002, No. 2. P. 3-27.
26. Political institutionalization of Russian society. // World Economy and Moscow Region. 1998, No. 2. P.22, 33.
27. Polunov A.Yu. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev is a man and politician. // National history. 1998, no. 1. pp. 42-55.
28. Problems of local government. // Socis. 1997, No. 1. P. 98.
29. Romanov R.M. Russian parliament of the early 20th century. // SGZ.
30. Rukavishnikov V.O. Political structure of post-Soviet Russia. // Sots.-polit. magazine. 1998, No. 1. P. 43.
31. Rybakov A.V., Tatarov A.M. Political institutions: theoretical and methodological aspect of analysis. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2002, No. 1. P. 139-150.
32. Salmin A. Russian Federation and federation in Russia. // World economy and international relations. 2002, No. 2. P. 40-60; No. 3. pp. 22-34.
33. Strezhneva M. Culture of European politics. // World economy and international relations. 2002, No. 3. P. 3-31.
34. Sumbatyan Yu.G. Authoritarianism as a category of political science. // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 1999, no. 6.
35. Hevrolina V.M. Foreign policy views of the Slavophiles of the late nineteenth century. // New and recent history. 1998, No. 2. P. 22-41.
36. Cheshkov M.A. Pre-revolutionary Russia and Soviet Union: analysis of continuity and rupture. // General science and modernity. 1997, no. 1. P.92.
37. Yakovenko I.T. Past and present of Russia: the imperial ideal and the national question. // Policy. 1997, No. 4. P. 88.
38. Official: from serving the state to serving society. // Social Sciences and Modernity. 2002, No. 4. P. 12-29

III. Educational materials(textbooks, study guides or lecture notes).

A short course of lectures on political science

Topic 1.

POLITICAL SCIENCE AS A SCIENCE.

PLAN.

1.Object, subject and structure of political science.

2.Functions of political science.

3.Methods of political science.

Object, subject and structure of political science

Like any science, political science has its own object and specific subject of knowledge. Let us first recall that in the theory of knowledge, an object is understood as something towards which the subject’s objective-practical and cognitive activity is directed. In other words, the object of a particular science is that part of objective reality that is subject to research by the cognizing subject. The subject of science is those aspects, features, properties and relationships of the object being studied that are subject to analysis.

The object of political science is political reality, or the political sphere of society. In the broadest sense of the word, the political sphere is an area of ​​social relations associated with the interaction of various communities of people - social groups, layers, classes, nations, peoples. It includes a number of social institutions and organizations that mediate this interaction. The most important of these institutions is the state. It is participation in the affairs of the state, the determination of the forms, tasks, and content of the state’s activities that is politics, the main content of people’s activities in the political sphere.

But this sphere of social life, as is known, is also studied by philosophy, sociology, history, theory of state and law, and other sciences. Each of them examines the processes occurring in the field of politics from a specific angle, or, as they say, has its own subject of study. What is the subject of political science, i.e. what aspects of politics, the political sphere of society does it study?

The subject of political science is the phenomenon of political power. This science is called upon to study the essence of political power, its institutions, the patterns of their emergence, functioning, development and change.

A general description of political science as a science involves a brief mention of the system of its concepts and categories.

Concepts and categories in a generalized form reflect the most significant, natural connections and relationships of reality. They are the main structural element of any scientific theory. Consequently, the categories and concepts of the political sphere of public life reflect the most significant connections and relationships inherent in the phenomena and processes of politics. In other words, the content of the object and subject of political science is fully reflected in the system of concepts and categories of this science.

The concepts and categories of the general theory of politics and political systems include politics, political power, subjects of politics, political relations, political system of society, political institution, state, political party, social movement, political consciousness, political ideology, political culture. The main concepts that reveal the dynamic aspects of political reality are: political activity, political action, political decision, political process, revolution, reform, political conflict, political agreement, political socialization, political role, political leadership, political behavior, political participation.

The main patterns in political science are the most significant and stable trends in the development and use of political power.

The first group consists of political-economic patterns that reflect the relationship between the economic basis of society and political power as an element of the superstructure.

The second group includes political and social patterns. They characterize the development of political power as a special social system with its own internal logic and structure. The main pattern here is the strengthening of the stability of political power. By the way, it will be noted that in domestic political science this pattern has not been properly developed, which has led to a shortage of necessary recommendations and measures to stabilize political life.

The third group consists of political and psychological patterns. They reflect the complex of existing connections and relationships between the individual and the government. Of greatest interest in this group are the patterns associated with the achievement and retention of power by a political leader.

Structure of political science

The entire set of political science problems can be grouped into separate sections, which make up the elements of the structure of political science. The main elements of the structure of political science include the following:

1) theory of politics, which is an introduction to this science and examines the philosophical and methodological foundations of politics and political relations, the formation and development of political power in modern society;

2) theory of political systems and their elements - states, parties, public associations, political regimes;

3) history of political doctrines and political ideology, studying the genesis of political science, the content of various socio-political doctrines and concepts, their role and functions in the political process;

4) the theory of managing socio-political processes, which studies the goals, objectives and forms of managing society, regulating processes occurring in various spheres of public life;

The political process reflects the complex, multi-subject and conflicting nature of political activity, its manifestation as relations between various social groups, organizations and individuals.

The main elements of the policy can be identified:

1) political consciousness, including inner world, mentality, value orientations and attitudes of individuals, as well as political views and theories;

2) normative ideas: programs and electoral platforms of political parties, targets of interest groups, political and legal norms;

3) institutions of power and struggle for it;

4) relations of power - domination and subordination, as well as political struggle and cooperation.

The components of politics are: political views, ideas, theories, programs, value orientations, attitudes, stereotypes, customs and traditions, patterns of behavior, public opinion, specific political language, human psychology, state, parties, interest groups and movements, laws, rights human and other political and political-legal norms, relations of power and about power, political leaders, elites, groups, etc.

Besides components and elements in politics are sometimes distinguished into three levels of its existence.

The first, actually political, macro level characterizes the state as a whole, public coercive power, its structure and functioning in the center and locally.

The second, micro-level of politics, covers individual organizations: parties, trade unions, corporations, firms, etc. Here, as in the state as a whole, internal phenomena and processes characteristic of big politics are also found: the promotion and implementation of collective goals, decision-making, distribution of positions and benefits, application of sanctions, competition of individuals and groups for power, conflicts of interest, etc.

The third, mega-level of politics, relates to the activities of international organizations: the UN, NATO, EEC, etc.

The first of these levels occupies a central place and characterizes the essence of politics. The second and third levels are of subordinate importance.

Functions of politics.

The meaning and role of politics as a social institution are determined by the functions that it performs in society. The number of functions may vary. The more numerous the functions of politics in a particular society, the less developed the society and the political sphere itself are, crushing other spheres.

Ideally, society is a balanced and internally consistent system of interaction between various spheres of human activity. In each area, specific needs are realized using methods organically inherent in it. For example, the needs for food and consumer goods are satisfied by the economic system with the help of the material interest of the manufacturer. However, in traditional or transitional societies, the immaturity of certain areas is compensated by the excessive influence of politics. It performs functions unusual for it, interfering in various spheres of civil society, often replacing it. Thus, the possibilities for personal self-realization are reduced. But societies developing on the basis of political and ideological methods have limited development resources, although they are capable of achieving impressive success. These societies form external motivation for activity (fear, violence) and do not develop the internal motivation of the individual (interests and needs) at all.

In modern societies, politics performs the following most significant functions, without which they cannot develop normally:

1) the function of ensuring the integrity and stability of society. It is carried out due to the fact that politics determines projects for the future, social guidelines and direction of development, and provides them with resources;

2) the function of mobilization and efficiency of general activities. By formulating value-based goals for progressive development, politics ensures their implementation by creating a developed motivational mechanism, providing the individual with effective opportunities to satisfy social needs, change social status with the help of power;

3) managerial and regulatory functions. Expressing powerfully significant interests and needs of various groups of society, politics ensures their interaction and influences them by making political decisions. By influencing the interests of groups, politics manages and regulates social processes using social coercion and violence;

4) rationalization function. By visibly representing group and individual interests, politics develops general rules and mechanisms for their representation and implementation. Thus, politics rationalizes conflicts and contradictions, prevents them and resolves them in a civilized manner.

5) the function of political socialization. Opening up wide opportunities for the realization of group and individual interests, politics includes the individual in social relations, endows him with experience and skills of transformative activities, effective performance of roles and functions.

6) humanitarian function. This function is expressed in creating guarantees of individual rights and freedoms, ensuring public order, civil peace and organization.

The relationship between politics and other spheres of public life.

Politics and law

Politics as the activity of state authorities, political parties and socio-political movements can only be carried out within certain legal boundaries, with the functioning of the legal system.

Law is one of the normative systems that regulate social relations, the actions and behavior of people, the functioning of public organizations and government bodies. Law is characterized by the universality of its rules and norms, their certainty, and the application of a single scale and measure to situations and relationships that have the same legal characteristics. Legal norms and requirements are enshrined in official documents of the state. They determine the measure of freedom and responsibilities of people, their associations, and government bodies. Law is aimed at ensuring stability, organization, and optimal conditions for the functioning of the entire social organism.

In society, in addition to law, there are other normative systems: moral norms, religion, various national-traditional behavioral stereotypes, etc. The main specificity of the legal system lies in its close connection with politics. Politics and law are interdependent and interpenetrate each other. Through the mechanism of state power, politics ensures the development and implementation of uniform, generally binding norms of behavior of people, the violation of which entails government measures impact. At the same time, law not only experiences the governing influence of politics, but, in turn, supports and ensures the implementation of appropriate policies and the implementation of political decisions. Law expresses the value orientations of politics and resists attempts at arbitrariness and lawlessness. Thus, law is the bearer of not only political, but also social values ​​of society in general; it consolidates, in particular, basic moral values, placing them under legal protection. The independent value of society is the principle of legality, the very existence of which is determined by the presence of a legal regulatory system. Therefore, the law contains guidelines for politics, sets the boundaries of political activity allowed by society (for example, it prohibits, under threat of punishment, the use of any forms of violence, activities aimed at overthrowing the existing constitutional order in the country, etc.).

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

INSTITUTE OF WORLD POLITICS

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

LECTURE NOTES ON POLITICAL SCIENCE

PROFESSOR M.A. MUNTEANA

MOSCOW 2006

Lecture one, two

POLITICAL SCIENCE: SUBJECT, OBJECT, STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

Lecture three, four

POLITICS AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

Lecture five

POLITICAL POWER

Lecture six

THE INDIVIDUAL AS A SUBJECT OF POLITICS

Lecture seven

POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION

Lecture eight

POLITICAL ELITES

Lecture nine

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Lecture ten

THE STATE AS A POLITICAL INSTITUTION

Lecture eleven

NON-STATE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

Lecture twelve

POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND REGIMES

Lecture fourteen

DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM

Lecture fifteen

POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

Lecture sixteen

POLITICAL CULTURE

Lecture seventeen

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD POLITICS

LECTURES ONE, TWO

POLITICAL SCIENCE: SUBJECT, OBJECT, MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

“Whether a person likes it or not, he cannot be outside the sphere of a certain type of political system... Politics is one of the inevitable facts of human life.”

Robert Dahl

I. The term “political science” is formed from two Greek words: “polike” - the art of exercising power in the city-state (polis), and “logos” - concept, judgment, knowledge. Origin of the term itself "policy" different authors interpret differently. Some researchers claim that the name of the politician comes from the Greek “ polis” and its derivatives “ politeia” ( constitution ), “ polites” ( citizen ) And “ politikos” ( statesman ). Others believe that this concept came from “ politike”, which meant the science and art of administering government affairs . Still others believe that the word politics itself comes from “ politeia”, denoting the legislative design of the social and state structure . Still others are convinced that the concept of “politics” comes from the Greek words “ poli” ( a lot of ) And “ tikos” ( interests ). Therefore, political science is most often defined as science of politics or how system of knowledge about politics, where politics appears as a diverse world of relationships, activities, behavior, views and communication connections regarding the implementation of group interests, power and management of society.

Political science is a new name for political science, which established itself in the 60s and 70s of the twentieth century, first in Germany and France, then in Russia. In many Western countries, and primarily in the United States, this term has not become so widely used, although they recognize its verbal convenience - brevity and clarity. In the development of the entire extensive body of knowledge about politics, the following stand out: three successively mediating each other systems or levels of intellectual development of political practice:

First of all, this common knowledge as a primary generalization of direct political experience. In our time, it is reflected in the press, speeches and memoirs of politicians, in the arguments of political commentators, etc.;

Another level is represented by diverse political teachings, created mainly by individual prophets, sages, lawyers, thinkers, through which the transition from myths and mythological knowledge to dogmatic knowledge – a fairly systematic, but uncritical description of certain beliefs and teachings. Greater thoroughness of knowledge about politics is achieved here due to their dogmatization , that is, transformation into an indisputable truth, recognized without evidence, and limitations of the subject of comprehension itself. In this case, above politics and the people acting in this area there is a certain law - divine or human - which determines the rules of political behavior. Examples of such knowledge in modern politics are: different ideologies (prominent French political scientist and sociologist Raymond Aron ( 1905-1983) called them doctrines that occupy the place of faith in the human soul and strive in some form of social order to “save humanity”);

Moving to the next level of knowledge - to critical knowledge , - is associated with the search for meaning and logic in politics itself. Played an important role in this process Nicolo Machiavelli(1469-1527) and the great humanists of the Renaissance. They contrasted dogma with practical experience, creating the preconditions for the emergence of political science (or, which is the same thing, political science).

II. Political science grew out of rationalization (rationality [from lat.rationalis– reasonable] – reasonable validity, expediency; a generalized description of a person’s social activity and behavior, based on his purposeful activities and effective achievement of his goals) ordinary and dogmatic knowledge about politics . Great works of religious, philosophical and political thought served as the intellectual environment without which this science could not have developed. This is why studying history of political thought constitutes an important and integral area of ​​political science. With all the splendor of the famous monuments of Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern philosophizing in the field of politics and the fact that the works of the ancient Greeks Plato ( 427-347 BC) and his student Aristotle ( 384-322 BC .), Roman Cicero(106-43 BC) allow them to be considered the forerunners of political science, however, it can be argued that the foundations of modern political science were laid around the middle of the 13th century in Western Europe.

Right here scholasticism (from gr. scholasticos – school, educational) - a medieval philosophical movement, whose representatives sought to rationally substantiate and systematize the Christian doctrine, to combine divine-dogmatic knowledge with rationalistic methodology,- gradually created the basis for the emergence of new forms of scholarship in European universities. Among them were disciplines called:

- arspolitica– political art (the term belonged to the German philosopher and theologian Albert the Great, about 1193-1280);

- scientiapolitica– political science (the author of the term is a Dominican monk, later canonized, Thomas Aquinas, 1226-1274);

- sanctissimacivilisscientia- the most divine civil science (the authorship of the term is attributed to the German humanist writer Sebastian Brant, 1448-1521), etc.

The first rise of political science occurred in the 16th-17th centuries. At this time, the works of the great Italian appeared Nicolo Machiavelli ( 1469-1527), “Six Books on the Republic” were written ” French philosopher and politician Jean Bodin ( 1520-1596), works of a Dutch lawyer, historian and diplomat published Hugo Grotius ( 1583-1645), Belgian scientist and writer Yusta Lipsia ( 1547-1606), German jurist Samuel Pufendorf ( 1632-1694). Through the efforts of these thinkers, for the first time, the politics as a sphere of human activity . Already at the beginning of the 17th century they were discovered specialized departments of political knowledge at universities in the Netherlands and Sweden. At the same time, it became widespread in German universities "the science of political orderliness" later developed into the doctrine of public administration. The lack of criticality of early approaches to the study of politics led to the fact that political studies fell under the desire of Enlightenment theorists to create a comprehensive science of man and society. In the 19th century they tried to continue this project Auguste Comte(1798-1857) in his concept of general sociology Karl Marx(1818-1883), who in his teaching insisted on the merging of philosophy, economics and sociology into a single whole.

III. The emergence of political science as an independent field of research and teaching began in the second half of the 19th century. At this time, university departments of state studies and politics were created through the joint efforts of historians, lawyers, and philosophers specializing in political issues. Scientists involved in the political sphere responded to attempts to create universal social theories with increased attention to empirical methodology (from gr. e mpeiria - experience), which was reflected in the most detailed descriptions of various types of states, forms of government, and other phenomena of political life ( Theodore Wolsey , Woodrow Wilson , Wilhelm Roscher ), Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin and etc.). Their explanation of political phenomena and processes proceeded from specific cultural and historical facts and factors with a certain inattention to the nature of man himself and society as a whole. Priority begins to be given to political comparative studies (from lat. comparative - comparative). It made political science more sensitive to the complexity and diversity of norms, values, institutions and social structures and to the interconnection of various forms of political behavior of people and political organisms, which, as the modern American political scientist believes David Apter ( genus. 1924 ) , “may mean something completely different to those affected by them” . Comparative scientific material acquired particular value due to the fact that the research process included problems invariably inherent in the political science of each country theory and practice of the national political system. John Stewart Mill(1806-1873) and his followers considered the comparative method in understanding society to correspond to experimental experiments in the natural sciences. It was on this foundation that further progress in political science was achieved.

At Sweden's oldest university, Uppsala, politics as an academic discipline began to acquire a scientific character in the 1840s. The Catholic University of Dublin (Ireland) formed in 1855department social and political science. Around the 1870s. Special courses on politics began to be taught at Oxford (Great Britain) and the University of Paris. OverseasFrancis Lieberwas created at Columbia College in 1857separate department in history and political science, and in 1863 it was opened at Cornell UniversityFaculty of History, Social and Political Science . In the 1870s, graduate students began specializing in political studies in this country. In Russia, the academic tradition of studying politics also emerges in the second halfXIXcentury, during the period of great reforms. The first Russian political studies proper can be considered such works as “The History of Political Doctrines” (published in 1869)B.N. Chicherina, “Politics as a Science” (1872)A.I. Stronina, “Historical-comparative method in jurisprudence and techniques for studying the history of law” (1880)MM. Kovalevsky(1851-1916). The development of early Russian political science took place on the basis of comparative approaches, but specialists in the field of history of politics and law and lawyers who dealt with state problems also worked very successfully.

IV. From the first quarter of the 20th century. begins modern, continuing to this day, stage of development of political science. The main contribution to the development of modern political science was made by Western theorists: Talcott Parsons ( 1902-1979), David Easton ( genus. 1917 ), Ralf Dahrendorf ( genus. 1929 ), Maurice Duverger ( born 1917 ), Robert Dahl ( genus. 1915 ), Gabriel Almond ( genus. 1911 ), Stephen Verba ( genus. 1932 ) etc. Modern political science is the most authoritative academic discipline, operating in the world International Association of Political Scientists ( IPSA ), which systematically holds scientific conferences and symposia. The opinions of professional political analysts began to be taken into account when developing and making the most important decisions in all states and international organizations. The development of modern political science can be divided into three stages:

1) period of formation (second half of the 19th century - late 40s of the 20th century), when the main attention was paid to the study of the problems of political power and its social foundations;

2) period of active expansion of the spheres of political science research after the creation of the International Association of Political Science in 1949 (late 40s - second half of the 70s of the twentieth century);

3) period of searching for new paradigms development of political science (late twentieth century to the present), characterized by the promotion of models and concepts of power and political relations adequate to the modern state of human society.

V. Political science developed especially quickly and fruitfully in the second half of the twentieth century. And this was mainly due to two main circumstances:

Firstly , with the appearance in American political science behaviorist approach , which became, following the definition Robert Dahl ( genus. 1915 ) , synonymous "political behavior". Politics, according to behaviorists, represents the actual actions of real people in political practice, and not the various sets of institutions and structures through which citizens express their will. The main difference of the behaviorist approach can be considered that it put the behavior of an ordinary person, an ordinary citizen, at the center of research. This immediately affected research priorities. Before the discovery of the new approach, political theory revealed the sphere of politics through the concepts “justice”, “state”, “law”, “patriotism”, “society”, “virtue”, “tyranny”. After the advent of behaviorism, the terms began to be used for the same purposes “relations”, “groups”, “conflicts”, “interactions”, “strata””;

Secondly, With the introduction of new methodologies for political research, systematic analysis of political practice began to be widely used. Systems approach in political science can be schematically characterized as follows:

A) political life – this is a system of behavior, human existence in the surrounding social environment, open to influences coming from outside and internal sources;

b) politic system - this is a series of interactions through which values ​​necessary for civilized life are distributed in society;

V) politic system has “regulating” and “self-regulating” potentials that allow changing and adjusting internal processes and structures in order to avoid self-destruction of the system;

G ) politic system dynamic and changeable;

d) politic system can remain stable if there is a certain balance between incoming and outgoing influences and impulses.

System theory policy led to a number of new scientific discoveries, generalizations, and terms:

a) theory of democracyJoseph Schumpeter;

b) pluralistic theory of democracyRobert Dahl;

c) theory of participatory democracyCrawford McPherson And Benjamin Barber;

d) the concept of a welfare state, a consumer society;

e) standardized terminology connecting political science with other sciences, including fundamental sciences;

f) comparative political science began to use the concept of “system” as a macro-unit in comparative analysis.

VI. Although to a large extent and conditionally, in the variety of political teachings of the emerging Western political science it was possible to distinguish two main directions , embodying two long-standing scientific traditions. Representatives of one of them - rationalistic or, otherwise, scientistic (scientific), - believe in the limitless possibilities of the human mind and the means of knowledge available to scientists, and therefore constantly strive to create a general theory of politics. In their opinion, political science is no different from the natural sciences. It, like the fundamental sciences, deals with laws, the action of which, in principle, can be calculated and predicted. Representatives another direction, which is usually called empirical, are skeptical about the possibility of discovering general laws of political processes and building a unified scientific system of theoretical knowledge adequate to real political reality. They believe that in the sphere of politics there are always some unknown, unaccountable facts and factors that can disavow the most ideal theoretical scheme. That's why task of political science consists of not in predictions of something that does not yet exist, but is to conscientiously examine past experience, to give the most adequate description of the existing reality, based on which every professional politician will draw his own conclusions about the future, guided not only by knowledge, but also by intuition.

Many scientists began to differentiate the understanding of political science intowide and morenarrow sense of the word. In the first case thisscience appears as the whole system scientific knowledge about politics, the totality of all political disciplines, including political philosophy, political sociology, political anthropology, theory of state and law, geopolitics, political psychology. In the second case, we are talking about political science as one of the political sciences that creates a theory of politics, political phenomena, relationships and processes, and also studies universal forms of manifestation of politics in various conditions of different countries and peoples. Political science in the latter case appears as the science of general principles and the patterns of political life of society and their specific manifestation, about the ways, forms and methods of their implementation in the activities of political subjects.

In the world tradition of political knowledge, it is usually customary to distinguish between political science as such (eng.political science) and political sciences (eng.policy science). In the Anglo-American Dictionary of Political Analysis, political science is understood as the systematic study of politics in general and, more narrowly, public administration. In terms of research, the development of political science went from attention to formal institutions (mainly the state) and legal relations in the direction of scientific interest in the behavior of people and their groups in politics, political processes and systems, and informal relations. The content of the main sections of political science as a complex scientific and educational discipline usually consists of:1) political theory; 2) comparative analysis political phenomena; 3) behavior in the sphere of politics; 4) power relations; 5) public administrative activities; 6) international relations and world politics.

VII. By the beginning of the 21st century, political science is a rapidly changing field of knowledge, successfully overcoming the barriers that previously delimited its specific sections. This began to give political science a distinctly interdisciplinary nature . A similar order of things began to emerge during “new revolution” in political science, the advent of which was announced back in 1969 David Easton ( genus. 1917 ) . From his point of view, in the process of giving political science a new quality, it was necessary not only to overcome some of the negative aspects of behaviorism (passion for creating “pure science”, underestimation of the practical component of political knowledge, passion for abstract analysis, insufficient attention to moral problems), but also to reorient political science to solve new problems. Easton I meant the following ones : a) study of the problems of the general crisis of human civilization and the transition to the post-industrial phase of development; b) overcoming empirical conservatism, traditionally characteristic of political science; c) introduction into the theory of political science of reasoning related to the influence of moral and ethical values ​​on the behavior of “political man”; d) inclusion in the subject field of political science of non-traditional political subjects (new social movements, transnational associations, marginal structures), the emergence of which requires the development of new political procedures.

The need for such a “new revolution” in political science can also be justified by arguments of a different kind: 1) post-industrial modernization of the modern world has demonstrated the insufficiency of the analytical methods of political science classics based on interests, and the need to address values ​​and their role in socio-political transformations; 2) in the conditions of transit, transitional relations (from industrialism to the information society), the growing threat of social destabilization and the collapse of social ties brought to the fore not the representative functions of politics, coming from civil society, but the integrationist ones, coming from the state as an instrument of confrontation with social chaos; 3) the prevailing concept in Western political science of society as a collection of “reasonable egoists” entering into relations of mutually beneficial exchange has increasingly come up against priorities that are collectivist in nature and cannot be reduced to the concept of individualism.

The inability of the political theory that has developed in Western science to reflect such “collective entities” testified to its certain limitations. Many social scientists around the world are increasingly raising the question that the established Western political theory reflects not so much the universals of the political world as the socio-civilizational specificity of the Euro-Atlantic region, and therefore the main task of modern political science has become the development of no longer regional European or American, but truly the world-historical experience of the political development of mankind. Russian political science has been actively involved in solving these problems. IN 1990 it was reintroduced into the number of disciplines studied in Russian universities . The development of political science in the Russian Federation can be divided into three periods: 1991-1994. – the period of apprenticeship and mastery of the main achievements of Western political science; 1995 – 1998 – completion of formation around magazines “ Policy », « Free Thought", "Socio-Political Journal", « Dialogue » communities of domestic political scientists professing a wide range of ideas and adhering to various methodologies. During this and subsequent periods, theoretical works by Russian authors appeared, in terms of the range and depth of the issues considered, reaching the level of world political science and even opening up new avenues of research in it and offering original concepts and theories.

VIII. Political science as an independent science has its own object and specific subject knowledge. The object of political science is the entire sphere of political relations in society, that is, the totality of all objects of political activity, primarily the state. An important subject of political science is such a multifaceted social phenomenon as political power. Famous American political scientist Harold Lasswell(1902-1978) even argued that “when we talk about the science of politics, we mean the science of power.” The primary activities of political science also include the development of the theory and methods of political activity, specific studies of political institutions, analysis of situations, subjects and objects of politics.

Subject political science are the patterns of formation and development of political power, forms and methods of its functioning and use. The most general patterns relate to the formation, development and change of political systems, the categorical apparatus, the most significant and sustainable trends in the manifestation and use of political power. Depending on the sphere of manifestation, the patterns established by political science can be divided into four groups:

- political and economic patterns the emergence, functioning and development of political interests, concepts, theories that clarify the relationship between politics and economics;

- socio-political patterns , determining the functioning of political power. The main thing in ensuring the stability of society is taking into account the interests and needs of various elements of its social structure, finding ways to harmonize these interests, eliminating or mitigating antagonisms, conflict situations, and crisis phenomena.

- patterns of functioning and development of the political process : a) the priority of the universal over class and party in politics; b) the rule of law for all members of society, c) separation of powers; d) transparency in the activities of the state and public organizations; e) political pluralism, etc.;

- political and psychological patterns reflect the relationship between the individual and the government and incorporate the processes of political socialization of the individual, the formation of political feelings, moods, value orientations, ways of influencing voters, the formation of political leaders, their conquest and retention of power, etc.

IX. When studying political phenomena and processes, political science uses various research methods characteristic of all social sciences. But there are methods that, together with others, transform political science into an independent scientific discipline. This is, first of all, system method, behaviorist approach (a special way of analyzing political phenomena through the study of the behavior of individuals and groups when they perform certain political roles), quantitative methods (statistical studies of political activity; questionnaire studies and surveys; laboratory experiments, especially in the field of international relations), comparative methods .

In political analysis, new methods such ascybernetic (policy analysis through the prism of information flows built on the principle of feedback and a network of purposeful communicative actions and mechanisms that ensure relations between managers and managed at all levels of relationships within society and with the external environment); 2)communicative (discovering the properties of politics through the study of the ways people communicate in the political space); 3)political-cultural (which laid the basis for the study of politics on the subjective orientations of elite and mass subjects towards political objects, which, in accordance with them, modified the forms of their behavior, the nature of the activities of political institutions and other parameters of the functioning of power), etc.

LECTURES THREE, FOUR

Topic 1. Political science as a science.

1. Politics as a social phenomenon.

Policy - most important area modern life. It applies to the whole society and to every person.

In general, the concept of the definition of “politician” was first given in Ancient Greece, where in a word policy denoted the state, and the word policy - state or public affairs, or rather the art of government.

At the modern scientific level, there are several main approaches to understanding politics.

First of all, this is a historically established idea of ​​politics as the management of society; and since the state is most involved in this, politics with this approach is reduced to state activity.

There is a widespread view of politics as regulating relations between different social strata, ethnic groups, and state entities.

The understanding of politics as the struggle of various social groups and individuals for power is widely cultivated. Prominent political science theorists G. Laswell and A. Kaplan argue that politics is connected with the formation of power. The identification of the category of power as a determining one follows from the fact that the sphere of politics not only covers the state and the political system, but also goes beyond their limits. This is especially obvious in domestic policy, where informal, hidden mechanisms for realizing public goals are clearly identified.

There is also a desire in modern science to reduce politics to the expression of economic or ideological interests. This approach comes from Marxism, from Lenin’s statement: “... politics is the most concentrated expression of economics.”

So, politics is a field of activity associated with relations between social groups and various social forces, the goal of which is to conquer, retain, and use state power.

This approach originates from Aristotle, who inextricably linked politics with the state. But it also corresponds to modern ideas, because it combines such key elements as activity - state - power.

Modern politics has a complex structure. Its most important elements are:

Policy objects– a continuously changing set of social problems, the solution of which requires structural changes and reforms in society.

Subjects of politics– direct participants in political activity: people, their organizations, parties, movements pursuing political goals, solving political problems.

Political power - the ability of certain political forces to exert a decisive influence on society, to develop and implement policies based on the balance of forces and interests, subordinating people to this.

Political processes – interaction of various political forces, political subjects in solving political problems, their impact on policy objects.

Political ideas and concepts – theoretical understanding political development society, reflecting the interests and sentiments of various social groups, developing solutions to political problems.

Listing only the main components of politics shows that as a phenomenon it is enormous. Politics covers almost all areas of modern life. In addition, the following concepts are widely used: economic policy, technical policy, military policy, social policy, cultural policy, educational policy, etc.

2. Political science in the system of sciences

Political science arose and is developing at the junction of many sciences that develop individual aspects of politics as a social phenomenon. History and geography, law and sociology, philosophy and economics, psychology and cybernetics, praxeology and logic, and a number of others have their own types in the study of various aspects of politics (methodological, specifically applied, sociological, historical, regulatory, etc.) Sci. Each of them has as its subject the study of one or another form of politics, starting from the methodological aspect and ending with specific applied issues.

Story studies real socio-political processes, different points of view on these processes and thereby allows us to find out and explain the reasons for current political processes;

Political and economic geography deals in detail with the conditions important for the analysis of the political process;

Philosophy creates a general picture of the world, clarifies the place of man and his activities in this world, gives general concepts about the principles and conditions of knowledge, the development of theoretical concepts in general, political ones in particular;

Right outlines the general framework for the activities of all government structures, as well as other organizations, citizens and their associations, that is, the framework for the formation of phenomena central to politics;

Sociology explores the structure and functioning of both society as a whole and individual groups that make it up, as well as socio-political relations in this society.

Each of these sciences has its own subject and its own angle of view on the study of politics. A number of domestic and foreign scientists consider political science as a general, integrative science of politics in all its manifestations. It interacts with other sciences of the socio-political cycle, using their scientific developments in the interests of a more complete knowledge of politics.

So, political science, defined in its most general form, is the science of politics and its relationship with man and society.

Since political science covers a wide range of problems and areas of political life, it has its own internal structure. In 1950, UNESCO experts identified four important sections:

· theory of politics(political theory, history of political ideas);

· political institutions(constitutions, central governments, regional local government, administration, social and economic functions of government, comparative analysis of political institutions);

· parties, groups and public opinion(political parties, groups and associations, citizen participation in government and administration, public opinion);

· international relationships(international politics, international organizations, international law).

2. Concepts of political science. Functions of political science

Like any scientific discipline that has a subject of research, political science has its own system of concepts and categories.

The specificity of the political science conceptual apparatus is that, being formed later than the apparatus of other social sciences, it borrowed many concepts from the historical, philosophical, legal, and sociological vocabulary. This process is natural in conditions of interpenetration and interaction of sciences. Political science has drawn many terms from the field social sciences: cybernetics, biology, theoretical mathematics and others.

The most important concepts of political science include: political system of society, classes, layers, social groups; political power, state, democracy; subjects of politics, political parties, political institutions; political process, political knowledge, political culture, political interest and others.

One of the most comprehensive is the concept of a political system, which means a set of political institutions, roles, relationships, and processes of political organization of society. The concept of a system is directly related to the concepts of power, state, institution, leader, party, citizen and many others.

Political concepts and assessments, the impact of political science on the life of modern society is becoming increasingly widespread and significant. This indicates the presence of diverse connections between political science and society, and the fulfillment of a number of important functions by it.

Worldview The function is that political science forms a certain view on the development of society, on the relationships within a society organized in a political form, on the place of man in a politically formed world.

Cognitive function is associated with the study of trends in political development, political phenomena, processes, events.

Management This function is ensured by the fact that political science, revealing trends in political development, equips society and especially power structures with information that contributes to effective political leadership and management of public affairs. Political science helps develop political decisions, participates in the development practical recommendations on management issues in general, on solving individual political problems.

Educational the function is expressed in the approval of a certain political culture of society with specific rules and traditions of political behavior.

Prognostic the function is realized in a variety of scientifically based forecasts of social development, concepts of political change, and offering adequate responses to specific political circumstances.

Topic 2. History of world political thought.

1. Political thought of the Ancient East.

The history of the development of human thought spans three and a half millennia.

A special role in the development of ideas about the organization of society and power in the East played Buddhism And Confucianism. Originated in the 7th-6th centuries. BC e. During the period of the decomposition of the tribal system and the emergence of the first states, these religious and philosophical ideas had and continue to influence the socio-political life of states, the way of life, way of thinking and political activity of state and public leaders of the countries of the East.

The term “political science” is formed by combining two Greek words: polity - political order, the way of exercising power and logos - knowledge.

Political science is a branch of knowledge about politics, the laws of structure, functioning and development of the political life of the state and society, reflecting the process of including the individual in the activities of expressing political interests and political power.

The object of political science is the political life of people, social communities that make up the state and society.

As a scientific discipline, political science is synonymous with political science. The concept of “political science” has many definitions; it is considered as: a) a form of spiritual and creative activity to obtain new knowledge about political reality; b) a social institution for the transfer, storage and production of political knowledge. The goal of political science is to acquire new knowledge about political reality.

Political science represents a system of developing knowledge, consisting of the general theory of political science, applied political science and the history of political thought. The content of political science as a theory of politics consists of a number of blocks: a) a system of knowledge about the essence and foundations of politics as a specific sphere of activity and social relations, the concept of political subjects, driving forces and motives for their actions; b) theory of political power; c) the doctrine of political systems and institutions; d) theory of political culture; e) a complex of knowledge in the field of international politics.

The central link of political science, its theoretical and substantive core is the doctrine of power. It also includes an analysis of the structures and mechanisms of functioning of specific types of political systems, the interaction of their individual elements, primarily the state and political parties.

An important aspect of political science is the study of the interaction of political systems with civil society. Also an essential element of political science is the theoretical analysis of the role of man in politics, i.e. the study of politics in its human dimension.

Political science also includes a complex of practical knowledge about the technology of political activity, techniques and motives of individual behavior in politics.

Political science helps ensure that members of society - leaders and ordinary citizens - are aware of social needs and interests, understand problems, and understand long-term tasks, which are often overlapped by basic needs.

One of the main tasks of political science is to identify the basic patterns of the functioning and development of politics and, thus, to understand the essence of politics. Based on knowledge of political laws, political science develops principles and norms of political activity. The study of politics is important for citizens to understand their place and role in modern society, and the ability to analyze political processes develops in an individual the ability to independently navigate the world of politics.

2. Functions and methods of political science

Like any other science, political science performs a number of specific functions.

The cognitive function allows you to obtain a certain amount of knowledge about political life and its laws. The study of political theory is the basis for overcoming stereotypes of mass consciousness, since the presence of stereotypes does not always contribute to a correct analysis of the complex interweaving of political events and the search for an objective solution.

Knowledge is necessary not only to explain political phenomena and processes, but also to make forecasts in politics.

The predictive function of political science is based on knowledge of objective trends in the social and political spheres of life, analysis of the real political situation, its defining contradictions and social forces. Political science, developing a method for analyzing political phenomena and processes, formulates in theoretical terms criteria for the effectiveness of political institutions, helps to identify opportunities for achieving optimal political decisions and make appropriate choices.

The normative-instrumental function of political science is to fulfill one of the central tasks of science - to justify political action, its means and methods.

The expert function of political knowledge is also highlighted. It is the basis for assessing certain political projects from the point of view of their compliance with the conclusions of political science, social needs and political and moral values ​​accepted in society.

The ideological function of political science serves as a scientific basis for the formation of ideals and interests, being a fundamental theoretical element of science.

Changes in the system of views of individuals, social communities, the place and role of political knowledge in them are reflected in the ideological function of political science.

The practical-activity functions of political science are determined by the nature of the political activity of the subjects, since the result of knowledge and changes in worldview is expressed in their practical-political activity.

The methods of political science include the following: dialectical; systemic; structural-functional; behavioral; comparative; concrete historical; sociological; normative; cultural; institutional; ontological.

As well as general scientific methods and methods of individual sociological research. At the empirical level of sociological research, specific methods of data collection are used: survey, questionnaire, interview, content analysis, social experiment. When processing and analyzing data obtained through a survey, methods of ranking, scaling, and correlation are used. The political science study ends with the formulation of conclusions, proposals, and recommendations, which must be confirmed by documentary and statistical data.