Because a person not only cognizes the surrounding reality. Perception of reality. Mechanisms of interpretation. About the influence of AF on language

Subjects and objects of politics: concept and types.

Personality as a subject and object of politics.

Political socialization of the individual.

1. Subjects and objects of politics.

Human society is heterogeneous. In all its spheres, various social forces operate, striving to achieve the satisfaction of their interests and being active for this purpose. These forces are a person, a group of people, classes, the people as a whole.

In the spiritual realm, they act for the sake of values ​​and ideas. In economics - for the sake of relations of production, exchange and consumption. Socially, for the sake of development opportunities.

In politics, the actions of subjects are associated with relations of political power.

At the same time, the degree of activity of these forces in different situations and different areas not the same.

Subjects of politics are those social forces that have political consciousness and actively participate in political life. The distinctive feature of any subject in general is its activity, the subject is who can act.

To be a subject of politics, certain conditions are required:

The presence of free will;

Availability of means and capabilities to implement decisions and monitor their implementation;

The presence of subjective qualities.

The object is the one towards whom the action of the subject is directed. The subject of politics can be an individual, class, party, nation, etc. - that is, who has and realizes his political needs. The objects of politics are political relations, the political system, and also in other situations the same person, class, people, etc. (election situation).

There are various classifications of subjects and objects of policy.

There are primary and secondary subjects

Primary are social forces, individuals who become aware of their political needs and begin to take certain steps in politics.

Secondary subjects. Sooner or later, a person, being the primary subject of politics, begins to realize that he can achieve some goals only by uniting and acting together with other people, since putting pressure on the same government is easier and more effective when thousands make their demands. (V.I. Lenin: “Politics begins where there are millions”). This is how secondary subjects are created - they seem to replace the primary ones in politics, acting on their behalf (for example, parties usually declare that they represent the interests of that part of the population that voted for them). This is how people create a party, people create a state, social strata create pressure groups.

The American political scientist Almond identified the following subjects according to the degree of formation of political consciousness:

• Parochial subjects are those who simply pursue their everyday interests and are not aware of their political participation and their political role

  Subjects - subjects - understand their political role, but do not see the opportunity to independently influence political life

  Subjects - participants - are aware of their place in politics, know political methods and means, and actively participate in politics.

Some researchers have identified the so-called main subjects among all political subjects. So, for Marx these are classes, for Pareto and Mosca - elites, for Bentley - interested groups.

By degree of political activity:

Apolitical, aloof

Passive

Competent Observers

The question of who is the subject of the political process has been and remains very controversial. In accordance with the most “ancient” one, dating back to the political ideas of Plato and receiving theoretical justification in the philosophy of Hegel and F. Nietzsche, the elite theory, the main subjects of politics are the most gifted, “chosen” people, i.e. elites.

Marxist theory proceeds from the fact that the main creators of history and subjects of politics are social (political) classes, headed by a certain political organization, for example a party. Democratic concepts and theories declare the principles of democracy or the democratic majority as the subject of politics.

Most modern researchers agree that the subject of politics can be any formal and informal organizations, aware of their political interests and capable of defending them in political confrontation.

There is another point of view, according to which only formal subjects can be subjects of the political process political relations performing their political functions.

The question of the subjectivity of non-“political” actors, such as mass social movements, for modern Russia very relevant. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on it in more detail.

In Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “1. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in Russian Federation is its multinational people... The people exercise their power directly, as well as through the organs state power and organs local government" Consequently, from a legal point of view, social movements, as a certain part of the people, are still a source of political power and a collective subject of political relations. In addition, they have political powers and legal grounds exercise their power not only through representative bodies, but also directly - through elections, referendums and mass protests.

Undoubtedly, subject of law And subject of politics - not identical concepts. The effectiveness of the conflict behavior of a “collective subject” in a political conflict depends on its mass character, organization, purposefulness and determination. The “Velvet Revolutions” in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and the popular revolt in Kyrgyzstan clearly demonstrated the ability of the masses to act as subjects and participants in the political process and achieve their goals. Who organized the performances of these “subjects” is a separate question.

The “collective subject” of the political process is not a homogeneous monolithic group. Already at the stage of its formation and development, it begins to be structured into: “activists”, “support groups”, “ordinary participants”, “curious fellow travelers”, etc. At the same time, either from their own environment or from the outside, legitimate ones appear, from the point of view of the “collective subject” ", leaders. For example, in Georgia and Ukraine, uprisings of the masses were organized (provoked) by well-known political leaders (Saakashvili, Yushenko), and the Polish Solidarity movement nominated its main leaders from among itself. Thus, the former electrician L. Walesa became not only one of the leaders of the movement, but also the president of the country. The leaders who lead the movement are empowered to represent the interests of the entire “collective subject.” Thus, subjectification occurs, and the mass movement itself becomes a “participant in the conflict,” which does not exclude its reverse transition.

Some authors propose to distinguish between concepts such as “subject of politics” and “political subject”. For subject of policy political activity is basic. These include the state political parties, political institutions and organizations, political leaders, etc. political subjects include those who are forced to engage in politics in addition to their main activities (ordinary citizens, social groups, public organizations, etc.). If for the first - formal subjects - political power and power is an end in itself, then for the latter it is only a means of solving their social, economic and other problems.

The subject of the political process can be a real or potential subject of political relations. It does not matter whether this subject is an institutionalized political actor or became one only as a result of certain actions or events.

Subject of politics- is an actor in the political process (political relations), a bearer of substantive and practical political activity, capable of influencing the object of politics (power and power relations).

Subjects of politics can be an individual, a social group and organization, a political organization and movement, political institutions and government agencies; social community (class, nation, ethnic or religious group, society); political elites or counter-elites; state, groups of states, global community, i.e. all those who influence the political process in society or in the international arena.

Some researchers propose to classify policy subjects as follows:

• social level subjects: classes, ethnic groups, groups, individual, electorate, mafia, military-industrial complex, commercial bourgeoisie, etc.;
• institutional subjects of policy: state, party, trade union, parliament, president, university, etc.;
• functional subjects of policy: army, church, opposition, lobby, media, transnational corporations, etc.

A political subject must have the ability and ability to influence political processes, for example, make political decisions or suspend their action, organize political actions or prevent them from taking place, actively participate in certain political events or deliberately ignore them.

Due to his numerous qualities or position in the political structure, the subject of politics is endowed with certain powers to make decisions concerning the destinies of many people. At the same time, an ordinary citizen can also be a subject of politics if, through his actions and his position, he is able to attract the attention of broad social strata, the political elite and have a certain influence on the political process. The subject is active by nature and purposeful in his activities.

In real politics, the subjects, as a rule, are political elites and leaders who may belong to certain political groups, parties, movements, or lead state institutions. Large social communities, protecting their interests, can also act as subjects of politics. But the heterogeneity of interests and the difficulty of coordinating their activities often lead to them becoming an object of manipulation in someone else’s political “game.”

The role of the subject in the political process, as already noted, is decisive. Therefore, he must also have the necessary strong-willed qualities and organizational skills in order to attract to one’s side the number of supporters and appropriate resources necessary to achieve the goal. The tragedy of modern Russian society is that the main social strata and classes, due to their passivity and disorganization, are actually excluded from politics. Public policy in the country is ostentatious, declarative in nature, and real political decisions are developed and adopted by shadow politics and the shadow economy in the interests of the ruling elite.

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 social development, This social characteristic of a person, which is determined by the measure of a person’s assimilation of social experience.

In the system of political relations, a person is a bearer of certain political qualities and represents an element of the political system.

Some researchers associate the concept of “personality” with active life position person or his involvement in political activities. Thus, V. A. Maltsev believes that “a person is then a person when he takes an active social position,” “when the results of real politics threaten the interests of not only the belonging group, but also personal interests themselves, the person (and not impersonality!) is necessarily included in political activity."

Such a definition of personality, in our opinion, is unlawful scientific point vision. Any person who has undergone a certain socialization and acquired socially significant qualities (even negative ones) is a person.

As for social activity or involvement in political activity, then these are qualitative characteristics of a person in certain types of activity and have nothing to do with the concept of “personality”. A socially passive individual who does not participate in politics may have many very important social qualities, t.s. be a person, but are not subject politicians.

Personality as a subject of politics is an individual who takes an active and conscious part in political activity and has a certain influence on the political process.

Aristotle also said that man is a political being, since he lives in a state and is forced, one way or another, to engage in politics. To this statement of the ancient thinker we can add the following: if a person himself does not engage in politics (does not want, does not know how, etc.), then he still becomes the object of someone else’s politics.

J. Locke was the first in scientific theory to distinguish between concepts such as “personality,” “society,” and “state,” and put the individual in first place in terms of importance. This is how a theory arose that presupposes freedom of personal individuality, initiative, enterprise, and subjectivity.

With the emergence and development of civil society, a movement begins from “we” to “I”, from an impersonal mass of subjects guided by the instructions of the authorities to free individual citizens capable of defending their political interests.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Citizens of Russia can freely express their views and beliefs (if they are not extremist in nature); join public organizations and movements; create public organizations and political parties yourself; take part in representative government bodies; be elected to any representative bodies and government structures; participate in the management of state affairs.

However, it is necessary to distinguish between personality - subject of law and personality - subject of politics. To become a real subject of politics, a person must have a certain political capital, have his own (group) political goals and interests and engage in political activities to realize them. An individual who is able to attract significant political potential to his side and is ready to defend his interests in real confrontation becomes a subject of the political process. Political subject avoiding political struggle, loses its “subjectivity” (the status of a subject of politics). For example, the President of Kyrgyzstan A. Akaev, during popular unrest in the spring of 2005, trying to avoid bloodshed, left the country and lost his presidential post. Nicholas II abdicated the throne in February 1917 and turned from a subject of political conflict into its victim.

The following options for individual participation (non-participation) in politics can be distinguished:

• active participation, when politics is a profession, calling or meaning of life for an individual;
• situational participation, when an individual participates in politics, solving his personal or group problems, or fulfilling his civic duty, for example, by participating in elections or expressing the position of his social group at a political rally;
• motivated 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;
• suspension from any political events, reluctance to participate in the political process, due to personal apoliticality and passivity.

In the first cases, the individual acts as a subject of politics, since to one degree or another he can influence the political process. In the cases specified in clauses 4 and 5, the individual is not the subject of the policy. Apolitical and passive individuals are easily susceptible to political manipulation and, as a rule, become an object in “alien” politics. At the same time, it is appropriate to recall the words that have become an aphorism: “If you do not want to get involved in politics, then sooner or later politics itself will deal with you.”

The degree of a person’s involvement in politics depends on a number of subjective and objective factors, including:

• the 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 socio-political and economic situation that has arisen in society (region);
• possession of various types of capital (economic, political, symbolic, etc.), allowing an individual to rely on the support of certain social groups.

The vast majority of ordinary citizens have the opportunity to become (feel like) subjects of politics only during certain periods, for example, during elections, referendums, political demonstrations, etc. usual time subjective political activity is a monopoly of professionals who, according to P. Bourdieu, produce and offer citizens to choose a political “product” that meets, first of all, the interests of the monopolists. Therefore, a real subject of politics can only be an individual who has the support of a certain part of the political elite or broad social strata.

In the Russian political system, the number of ordinary citizens who are subjects of politics is very limited, since there are no sufficiently developed institutions of civil society and the corresponding legal framework that would facilitate the involvement of citizens in political activities.

Participants in the political process and political participation

Large social communities become direct political subjects, as a rule, during mass political events: uprisings, revolutions, etc. But in calmer times, they participate in the political process through their representatives, i.e. indirectly. Therefore, in such cases, the definition of “participants in the political process” is more suitable for them.

Participants in the political process- these are individuals, groups, organizations, work collectives, social communities, etc., taking part in certain political events or political life in general.

If a political subject, as a rule, has his own interests and goals in politics, his own ways and methods of achieving these goals and shows increased political activity and initiative, then the participant, as a rule, does not possess all of the listed qualities. He may consciously or not quite consciously take part in political events, may accidentally be involved in these events or become a participant under coercion. For example, under the communist regime, the authorities in the USSR forced people to participate in mass political events (subbotniks, rallies, demonstrations, etc.), and various forms of punishment were applied to those who did not want to be “extras” in someone else’s political game.

During the development of political events, subjects and participants may change places. Thus, an ordinary participant in a mass political event may realize his interest in politics and become a leader or be elected to a leading political position; and a former political functionary, having lost legitimacy and his position, can join the ranks of ordinary participants in the political process.

In each state, depending 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 citizens in politics is called political participation.

Political participation should be distinguished from such similar concepts as political activity and political behavior.

Political activity represents a set of organized actions of political subjects aimed at implementing the general objectives of the political system.

Political behavior reflects the qualitative characteristics of participation and activity.

Political participation is the involvement of citizens in the political process, in certain political actions. Here we're talking about first of all, about the participation in politics of citizens who do not claim the “title” of professional politicians, for example, the participation of ordinary voters in the election campaign.

The involvement of citizens in the political process, as mentioned above, depends on many factors, including the confidence of a particular voter that his vote in the elections will have at least some positive impact on solving his personal problems and improving the general situation in country.

But in real life Some citizens, disappointed in the effectiveness of their personal participation in the political process, do not want to participate in it, others do not participate due to their passivity, and others ignore political events for reasons of principle. There is a category of citizens who do not have the opportunity and means to take part in the political process. For example, such people prefer to work on their jobs on election day. garden plot. Aristotle pointed out this problem. He, in particular, complained that middle-income people are little involved in politics, since they are forced to earn their living when others are protesting.

In political theory, the following reasons and grounds for the participation of individuals and groups in the political process are distinguished:

• the desire to realize one’s interests, 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;
• the desire to express one’s loyalty to the existing regime of power or to support one or another political party or movement;
• desire for success in life and public 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.

There is also such a mechanism for involvement in the political process as mobilization participation. It involves the use of various methods of coercion or encouragement in order to attract citizens to participate in one or another political event. For example, during the Soviet era, a person who refused to go to a vote or rally could be deprived of his thirteenth salary or the queue for housing could be pushed back. During the presidential elections in Yakutia at the end of 2001, voters were lured to the polling stations with valuable gifts.

There are two main forms of political participation of citizens in the political process: direct and indirect.

Direct participation implies that 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, i.e. implements political administration country.

Researchers share the problem different kinds 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 (A. Marshall).

The role, meaning and forms of political participation largely depend on the type of political system and political regime in the country. In a democratic system, political participation is one of the forms of citizen participation in government. It performs such important functions as putting forward requirements for the adoption of necessary political decisions, coordination of the political course of the government and the president, control over the implementation of certain political decisions. Political participation can also confirm or deny the legitimacy of an existing political regime. The most important function of political participation in a democratic society is participation in elections with the aim of shaping government agencies authorities. Moreover, political participation is effective form political socialization citizens. By taking part in political events, citizens develop certain political qualities.

In a totalitarian political system, as a rule, only one form of political participation of citizens is allowed - mobilization. Initiatives not sanctioned by the authorities are punishable. Usually, for the next demonstration of the unity of the people and the ruling elite (party or leader), parades, processions, rallies, election campaigns are held, the forms of conduct, the number of participants and the results of which are predetermined by the ruling regime. Such mobilization participation is one of the methods of political manipulation and an imitation of the real participation of citizens in the political process.

The problem of personality has political science, at least three main aspects: 1) the person himself with his inherent individual traits and qualities: intellectual, emotional, volitional; 2) a person as a representative of a group: status, class, socio-ethnic, elite, masses, etc., and also as a performer of a certain political role: voter, member of an organization, parliamentarian; 3) the individual as a conscious, active participant in social and political life, a person who usually interacts with the authorities and acts as the subject and object of the influence of politics.

The place of man in political life in in general terms considered in many political doctrines. Already in ancient times, teachings appeared that differently assessed the individual’s attitude to politics and the state. The most influential of them are the teachings of Confucius, Plato and Aristotle.

Confucius developed a paternalistic concept of the state, according to which the state was represented as one large patriarchal family, in which all power belongs to the ruler-father. In the paternalistic concept of power, the ordinary person is given the role of a simple executor of the royal will, i.e. passive, unconscious participant in politics.

In Plato's political concept, a totalitarian interpretation of personality was developed. With this understanding of the individual, the question of its autonomy and political role is obviously excluded and the person acts only as an object of power.

In Aristotle's teachings, the political life of society was considered in relation to human nature. Aristotle considers the individual to be a political being by nature due to his natural predestination to live in society, a collective. In the state, as the highest form of communication between people, human nature is realized - the individual becomes an organic part of a living and integral political organism. Although Aristotle advocates the priority of the state in relations with the citizen, unlike Plato, he is an opponent of the nationalization of society. In general, Aristotle, like his predecessors, does not separate the individual and society from the state.

In Machiavelli's political concept, man was viewed as a negative element, and relations between people were characterized by the formula “man is a wolf to man.” People unite into a crowd of dark and uneducated people. According to Machiavelli, a ruler must consider all people to be evil. However, he was also a theorist of organizational human behavior. His name is associated with the theory of elites, the technology of effective leadership.

The role of personality in politics in general has been considered in many political teachings. However, the predominant consideration was the role of prominent politicians in relation to the activities of the masses, classes, or even the crowd. In political teachings, it was mainly about the political role of outstanding personalities - statesmen, leaders of political movements, ideologists, leaders, i.e. those who had a significant influence on politics and the masses. Therefore, policies are often personified and given the name of the person who defined or implemented them. At the same time, the question of the role of the “ordinary” or “mass” individual in politics turned out to be the least developed. And only in the second half of the 20th century. under the influence of the collapse of totalitarian regimes and the further democratization of public life, quite serious attention began to be paid to this direction in political teachings.

Politics in any manifestation is somehow reflected in destinies ordinary people. In this sense, we can say that the final object of politics is always the ordinary citizen.

This circumstance determines the active position of the ordinary citizen in political life, i.e. so that he acts as a subject of politics.

The active inclusion of the individual in the political process requires certain prerequisites. They can be divided into three groups: material, socio-cultural and political-legal. Experience shows that for a person to participate in normal political activity, his primary satisfaction is necessary. vital needs. It has been noted that the richer the society, the more open it is to democratic forms of functioning. The level of well-being has a significant impact on a person's political beliefs and orientations.

A necessary condition for ensuring effective opportunities for an individual to influence the state and its bodies is the political culture of the individual, especially such a cultural factor as education. Lenin's famous saying is that an illiterate person is outside politics. This means that an illiterate person stands outside of personally conscious politics, is an object of political actions, and not their subject. And vice versa, the higher a person’s level of education, the more politically oriented he is and, most importantly, predisposed to democratic orientations, attitudes and actions.

Political and legal factors are also an essential prerequisite for active political participation. These include a democratic political regime, the dominance of a democratic political culture in society, legal support for democratic procedures for the formation of all power structures, and the participation of members of society at all stages of political decisions.

Thus, the political activity of an individual is based on a set of certain prerequisites that either contribute to the development of political activity, the disclosure of the potential qualities of a person as a socio-political figure, the formation of the individual as an actual subject of the political life of society, or significantly complicate all these processes and preserve political apathy and passivity .

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The problem of the individual as a subject of political activity is not limited to the conditions in which its political functions are carried out. Much depends on a person’s political activity, on the degree to which he realizes his role as a political subject. In this regard, two aspects are usually distinguished - the participation of ordinary citizens in social and political life and the political activity of persons for whom politics becomes practically a professional occupation.

To denote the actions of ordinary citizens in the sphere of politics, the concept of “political participation” is used. It usually means the participation in politics of autonomous, private citizens who are neither political leaders nor functionaries of government structures or political parties. Political participation involves overcoming the individual’s alienation from power and politics, and his active involvement in the political process.

The political activity of citizens varies. In modern democracies, the political activity of citizens is manifested mainly by participation in voting in elections, referendums, and in various forms of pressure on power structures when making and implementing certain important decisions.

The most important mechanism for involving citizens in the political process is the activities of political parties, socio-political organizations and movements. They are the ones who most often act as initiators and organizers of such citizen actions as participation in election campaigns, demonstrations, rallies, collecting signatures for petitions, etc. The bulk of the population shows moderate interest in politics and limits itself to voting in elections and occasional participation in local government events. A sharp increase in political activity occurs during periods of political instability. However, such activity can be destructive.

Citizen participation in politics is one of the central indicators of the qualitative features of political systems and the degree of their democracy. In a democratic society, this is mass participation, free and effective in resolving issues that affect the essential interests of citizens. In an authoritarian society, part of the population is completely or partially excluded from participation in politics. Totalitarianism, on the contrary, strives for mobilizational involvement in ritual actions to support the regime of the maximum share of the population.

From the point of view of political subjectivity, the following main personality types are distinguished:

a) a person with high political activity, participating in political life. Activists are constantly interested in and informed about political issues. This may be a citizen - a member of a political or public organization purposefully and voluntarily involved in political activity; public, socio-political figure; a professional politician for whom political activity is the main, sole or main occupation; political leader, leader of the highest authority - formal or informal;

b) a personality of a political observer with varying levels of competence, showing interest in politics, but not personally participating in it. If she participates, then only under the influence of any arguments or circumstances that she considers dominant. This category of people is also constantly interested in politics, has their own opinion about it and can exert political influence on others, often shaping public opinion;

c) the personality of a sufficiently competent critic, participating or not participating in politics. She is well informed, but her attitude towards power and politics is usually negative;

d) a passive person with a neutral, negative or indifferent attitude towards politics;

e) an apolitical and aloof personality with negative attitude to her participation in politics, not interested in it and knowing little about it.

Activists have a positive attitude towards personal participation in political life and democratic institutions; they show significant interest in politics and public life, and are well informed. Leaders heading political movements and institutions emerge predominantly from their midst. Conversely, those alienated from public life have a negative attitude towards politics and are inert. Of course, passive, apolitical and alienated citizens cannot be genuine subjects of politics. They are most often the object of political manipulation.

The basis for the differences between active and passive participants in socio-political life are the motives and attitudes by which specific individuals are included in political activity.

Political motives that incline people to seek or participate in power can be egocentric and sociocentric. Egocentric are motives that concentrate on self individual. Sociocentric (or public) - motives that concentrate on the benefit of some broader social group of people, a national community, or residents of a certain region. These two motives of behavior are often combined, mutually reinforcing each other and leading to the same type of action.

What are the motives why, under the same conditions, one person shows a willingness to participate in political life, while another will avoid it? In this situation, the reasons for the activity of one and the passivity of the other should be sought in their personality traits, family education, social environment, lifestyle.

What are the personality traits of an adult or young man contribute to the departure from politics, the adoption of a more or less consciously apolitical role in society? An individual’s political activity or passivity is a consequence of a number of personal qualities.

This is, first of all, the strength of individuality, which includes such traits as self-confidence, in one’s own competence, a tendency to communicate, a desire for self-affirmation, an attempt to prove one’s superiority, etc. These traits are positively correlated with participation in political and social life. Most people who avoid politics display a weak personality and lack confidence in their strengths and capabilities.

Positively correlated with participation in political life is the individual’s personal involvement, which forces him to take an active part in various life situations. People who show weak involvement and passivity in other life situations avoid politics and participation in public life.

People’s high intellectual level and interest in learning new things have a positive effect on people’s attitude to politics, and avoidance of participation in political life is often characteristic of people with low intellectual activity.

Psychologists believe that participation in politics can be facilitated by extroverted tendencies, characteristic of individuals who are most ready and directly responsive to external events, seek communication with others and feel good in their society. And the opposite of them are introverted tendencies, characteristic of a person whose mental activity is aimed mainly at his own inner world experiences and feelings, and represent a psychological prerequisite for “escape from politics.”

The need to relieve internal tension often persuades people to participate in social activities, but at the same time hinders the achievement of success in it. People with very strong psychological tension and aggressiveness fail and therefore avoid participating in politics. At the same time, persons free from aggressiveness and psychological tension do not seek to participate in politics and may even avoid it because of the conflicts associated with this tension.

Participation in political activity can be influenced by the example of a popular political leader, the idea that a simple common sense. Under the influence of the media, which propagate political ideas in a popular form, many people consider themselves entitled to make political assessments and recommendations.

In a normal, civilized society, politics is carried out for people and through people. Whatever significant role social groups, mass social movements, and political parties play, its main subject is the individual, since these groups, movements, parties and other social and political organizations themselves consist of real individuals. Only through the interaction of their interests and will is determined the content and direction of the political process, the entire political life of society. The active participation of an individual in the political life of society has multifaceted significance.

Firstly, through such participation conditions are created for more full disclosure all human capabilities, for his creative self-expression, which is a necessary prerequisite for the most effective solution of social problems. Qualitative transformation of all aspects of life presupposes the full intensification of the human factor, the active and conscious participation of the broad masses in this process. But without democracy, trust and transparency, neither creativity, nor conscious activity, nor interested participation become possible.

Secondly, general development of a person as a subject of politics is an important condition for the close connection of political institutions with civil society, control over the activities of political and administrative structures by the people, a means of counteracting the active management apparatus, separating management functions from society.

Thirdly, through the development of democracy, society satisfies the need of its members to participate in the management of state affairs.

An analysis of a person’s place in political life opens a large section of political science devoted to the subjects of politics. Typically, subjects are understood as individuals and social groups (strata), as well as organizations that take direct, more or less conscious participation in political activity, although the degree of such consciousness may vary. Thus, the famous American political scientist G. Almond, depending on the awareness of participation in politics, distinguishes three groups of its subjects.

Subject groups

• 1) personal subjects, driven by concern for the realization of their immediate, local, everyday interests and not realizing political consequences their participation, their political role;
• 2) subjects-subjects who understand their political role and purpose, but do not see the opportunity to go beyond their limits and independently influence political life;
• 3) participating subjects (participants), clearly aware of their goals and ways of their implementation and using institutional mechanisms (parties, movements, etc.) for this.

Classification of policy subjects

The classification of policy subjects is quite diverse. The most widespread division is into two main levels:

• 1) social, including individuals and various social strata (including professional, ethnic, demographic, etc.). This includes the individual, professional group, nation, class, elite, etc.;
• 2) institutional, covering the state, parties, trade unions, political movements, institutionalized interest groups, etc.

Sometimes a third, “functional” level is distinguished, including social institutions, intended to perform primarily non-political tasks, although in reality they have a noticeable and sometimes very significant influence on politics: churches, universities, corporations, sports associations, etc.

Primary subject of policy

The primary subject of politics is the personality (individual). As the ancients (Protagoras) noted, “man is the measure of all things.” This fully applies to politics as well. It is the individual, his interests, value orientations and goals that act as the “measure of politics”, the driving principle of the political activity of nations, classes, parties, etc. The problem of personality has at least three main aspects in political science:

• 1) personality as individual psycho-physiological (emotional, intellectual, etc.) characteristics of a person, his specific habits, value orientations, style of behavior, etc. When analyzing personality from this angle, the main attention is usually paid to political leaders, on whose individual characteristics big politics often depends;
• 2) a person as a representative of a group: status, professional, socio-ethnic, class, elite, masses, etc., as well as as a performer of a certain political role: voter, party member, parliamentarian, minister. This approach to the individual, as it were, dissolves it in larger social formations or the roles prescribed for it and does not allow reflecting the autonomy and activity of the individual as a specific subject of politics;
• 3) personality as a relatively independent, active participant in political and social life, possessing reason and free will, not only universal, but also unique traits of its kind, that is, as an integrity that cannot be reduced to its individual social (professional, class, national and etc.) characteristics and having the political status of a citizen or subject of the state. It is in this aspect that a person usually interacts with power, performs certain political duties and acts as a subject and an object, the subject of the influence of politics.

The place of man in political life has long been the subject of heated debate, which has not subsided even today. Already in ancient times, teachings appeared that differently assessed the individual’s attitude to politics and the state. The most influential of them are the teachings of Confucius, Plato and Aristotle. The first of these thinkers developed in detail the paternalistic concept of the state, which dominated world political thought for many centuries, and in the East for almost two millennia.

The paternalistic view of politics and personality comes from the inequality of the political status of people, the interpretation of the state as one large patriarchal family, in which all power belongs to the ruler - the father. The remaining citizens are divided into older ones - the aristocracy and bureaucrats, and younger ones - the common people. The younger ones must submissively obey the elders, who, and above all the monarch, in turn are called upon to take care of the welfare of the people.

In the paternalistic concept of power, the ordinary person is given the role of a simple executor of the royal will, illuminated by the divine origin or ecclesiastical blessing of the monarch. The individual here appears not as a conscious or semi-conscious subject of politics, not as a citizen possessing inalienable rights, but mainly only as a parochial, that is, a politically unconscious participant in politics. And only the upper strata of society rise to semi-conscious, subservient participation.

In the modern world, paternalistic views on the relationship between the individual and power have largely been overcome, although many of them are still quite widespread today in developing countries with a predominantly peasant population, in authoritarian and totalitarian states that represent the dictator leader as the father of the nation, the protector common man, and to some extent in democratic states, where part of the population still perceives the president or prime minister as the head of a single big family, and yourself - as little man, obedient executor of the instructions of the authorities.