home

Abstract: Political stability. Political stability

The problem of political stability of the regime is undoubtedly one of the fundamental ones in political science. S. Huntington, who made a significant contribution to the development of this problem, wrote in one of the first and most famous of his books: “The most significant political characteristic of various societies is associated not with the form of their government, but with the degree of controllability.” More than twenty years later, he repeated this thought almost verbatim on the pages of another work: “The difference between order and anarchy is more fundamental than the difference between democracy and dictatorship.”

One of the most important (although not the only) factors that people usually pay attention to is socio-economic development. The development imperative appears at one of the stages of social evolution as a condition for the self-preservation of power. If the government or the regime for some reason are not aware of this and become a brake on the implementation of urgent socio-economic transformations, then the outcome of such “stubbornness” most often becomes their elimination from the political arena. Elimination, we add, is associated with very painful consequences for society. The development imperative is therefore absolute and irreducible. Only a government that fully takes this imperative into account in its activities can be considered promising. Based on this understanding, a regime that can ensure the integration of society along the paths of effective socio-economic development can be considered stable.

Modernization is almost never accompanied by stabilization of existing political structures. The weakening of legitimacy, the frantic search by the authorities for additional social and international support - these are phenomena that are well known to observers of the modern Russian situation and which are much more typical for any transition period. “Modernity,” Huntington wrote, “needs stability, but modernization ( modernization) creates instability." In Political Order in Changing Societies, Huntington summarized his observations about political stability and instability in three formulas. In his opinion, in the conditions of modernizing authoritarianism, ensuring stability should be associated with limiting the role of political participation masses, which will undermine the reliability of institutions.

However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, even minimal, level of stability is absolutely necessary for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can vary significantly and vary - from balancing on the brink of large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability of political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only levels or degrees of stability-instability, but also different types of political stability. In this regard, researchers distinguish, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to change and the influence of the environment, and secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment.

Legitimacy of power

The problem of the legitimacy of political power, which was not posed in the twentieth century, but was especially emphasized by the works of M. Weber, continues to cause a lot of controversy among sociologists, philosophers and political scientists. In these debates we will be interested in only one aspect: is legitimacy necessary and sufficient condition maintaining political stability. Researchers generally agree that legitimacy, if it exists, undoubtedly contributes to stabilization.

M. Weber proceeded from the fact (although this interpretation of Weber continues to be disputed) that legitimacy is a factor that allows stabilizing relations of political domination in society. By a system of domination, Weber meant a social order in which orders are given and orders are carried out. According to Weber, execution of orders is achieved not only and not even so much by the use of force.

More importantly, any government operates within the framework of certain socially developed norms and rules of society and relies on these norms in its activities. If such norms are recognized by the public majority and are perceived as values, one can be sure that state power is based on fairly solid foundations. Or, in other words, it has legitimacy.

Legitimacy, therefore, means the coincidence of social norms and values, recognition or legitimacy (in the non-legal sense) of power. For Weber, legitimacy acts as a guarantor of the stability of existing structures, procedures, and decisions of officials in society, “regardless of the specific content of their actions.” According to Weber, legitimacy can be of three fundamental types - rational, traditional and charismatic. Accordingly, power acquires its powers on the basis of three different ways - rationally developed rules of human coexistence, traditions established in society and the charisma of the leader. Since legitimacy acts for Weber as the internal basis and meaning of political domination, then on its basis, the German scientist believed, three main types of political domination can also be distinguished.

Legitimate power, therefore, contains a contradiction in itself and is potentially unstable. The presence of this contradiction, noticed by political analysis, contributed to the emergence and development in political science of the concept of “efficiency” of power, and also again attracted the attention of researchers to the problem of stabilizing a regime that does not have political and ideological legitimacy.

According to another position put forward by researchers of specific political systems and processes, legitimacy is essential, but not necessary for regime stabilization. In the practice of regimes, periods can be found, sometimes quite long, up to two decades, when the regime exists without change, although the legality and fairness of its power is not recognized by the majority of the population. The famous South African researcher S. Greenberg wrote about this, in particular, and showed that the apartheid regime, through the use of military-economic resources, turned out to be much more stable than expected, despite the fact that in quantitative terms it was supported by no more than one-fifth of the population.

Thus, the problem of legitimacy, despite its importance, by no means exhausts the content of regime stability. Let us therefore turn to the following the most important component political stability.

Efficiency of power

The effectiveness of power is a parameter that is often considered by political scientists as complementary or interchangeable with legitimacy and capable of stabilizing the system even in conditions of its lack of legitimacy.

The concept of efficiency as such was introduced by S. Lipset in his work “Political Man. Social Foundations of Politics,” published in 1960. According to Lipset, the stability of power is determined not by one (legitimacy), but by two parameters - legitimacy and economic efficiency of power. He believed that the very legitimacy of a system of power can be achieved in two ways: either through continuity, its perception of previous, once established norms; either due to efficiency, i.e. the system itself acquiring the ability, even abandoning traditional norms, to solve pressing, primarily socio-economic problems of social development. In the first case, Lipset undoubtedly had in mind the traditional type of legitimacy identified by Weber, based on a patriarchal or class system of social connections. This is a historical situation in which the imperative of economic development has not yet emerged as a priority and urgency. Therefore, the authorities may be preoccupied with other, “their own” problems (intrigues, elimination of the recalcitrant, objectively unnecessary external wars).

Another thing is charismatic legitimacy, designed to demonstrate the prophetic qualities of a leader and his ability to lead the process of a radical transformation of the economic and value foundations of society, relying on the affective faith of the masses in his extraordinary qualities. This type of legitimacy is closely related to economic efficiency. Firstly, it will not be able to exist for a long enough time without significant economic shifts, and secondly, the very nature and depth of these shifts are subject to the influence of the charismatic. Let's take Stalin's transformations. The authority of the “leader” among the Bolshevik and popular masses arose and strengthened due to the existing vacuum of power and Stalin’s ability, taking advantage of this vacuum, to gradually subjugate the organs of state coercion and the machine of party power. However, later one of the factors of this authority was the economic leap made by the country from a pre-industrial to an industrial economy. This leap, the replicated figures of achievements, and the incessant propaganda campaign in a society with a traditional political culture simultaneously served as a source of mass enthusiasm and labor heroism, and strengthened the authority of the “leader of all times and peoples.” The economic efficiency of the regime thus served as one of the undoubted sources of its legitimacy. To a certain extent, this dynamic is characteristic of any political system. Lipset wrote, for example, that "the success of the American republic in establishing post-revolutionary democratic legitimacy may have been linked to the strength of the society's achievement values." Efficiency, as it becomes clear, is a source of legitimacy and, at the same time, a bridge that facilitates the replacement of one type of legitimate power by another.

Thus, we can conclude that the political stability of the government consists of two main components - legitimacy, or recognition of its authority by broad layers of society and efficiency, meaning the ability of the government to use the resources at its disposal (material and spiritual-psychological) in order to solve urgent and urgent problems. tasks. The effectiveness of government is not limited to its ability to control the situation in society, but also contributes to the solution of socio-economic problems. The social conflict thus comes under the control of the authorities because it will be able to involve the main strata of society in the process of reform and development. Adequate political leadership, skillful use and transformation of existing political institutions expand the meaning of effective power, helping to reduce the potential for social violence (manifestations of this violence can range from unsanctioned strikes and demonstrations to armed insurgents and terrorists) and ensuring the integration of society.

Social and political stability is one of the necessary conditions for the successful development of any society; in a transitional society, the importance of stability increases many times over.

The political system, being open, experiences not only internal, but also external influences, capable of causing its destabilization under certain conditions. The most important indicator of the stability of a political system is its ability to neutralize negative influences from the outside.

The main forms of implementation of the latter are subversive activities carried out by special services and organizations, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, threat of force, etc. An adequate and timely response to such external influences makes it possible to protect the state’s own national interests and achieve favorable conditions for their implementation . Negative Impact from the outside on the political system may not be of a purposeful nature, but be a consequence of general planetary difficulties and unresolved problems.

At the same time, external influences can also be positive for the political system if the state’s foreign policy does not contradict the interests of the international community. Peoples are interested in the consistent implementation of democratization, humanization and demilitarization of world politics, in the development of measures to ensure the survival of humanity in times of crisis modern society and a sharp deterioration in quality natural factors. Taking into account these global needs in political practice evokes the approval and support of other countries of the world community, which strengthens the position and authority of the state and its leaders in public opinion, both abroad and within the country.

The functioning of the political system, facing outward, adequate to the current needs of the development of the world community, makes it more effective and gives it an additional impetus for stability, and therefore security for the country, with which the latter is closely connected.

Thus, political stability is ensured subject to the unity of the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, the Fundamentals of Legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and, at the same time, with a clear delineation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal government bodies and the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This is the key problem of modern multinational Russia.

List of used literature and sources

1. L.N. Alisova, Z.T. Golenkova. Political sociology. Political support as a condition for stability. M., 2006.

2. Averyanov, Yu.I. Political science: encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1993.

3. See: Krasnov B.I. Political system // Socio-political journal. M., 1995.

4. Tishkov V. A. Post-Soviet Russia as nation state: problems and prospects // At the turn of the century. St. Petersburg, 1996.

5. Tsygankov A. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. M., 1995.

6. http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Polit/Cigank/11.php

In general theoretical terms, categories such as “immutability” and “stability” are close to the concept of “stability”. They characterize some specific processes occurring in various spheres of social life. Thus, immutability implies a process in which, within certain time and spatial intervals, the state of the objects under consideration remains essentially the same. Stability defines processes in terms of their ability to keep changes (fluctuations) within given (pre-known) boundaries, within certain parameters, and also indicates the ability of the system to restore disturbed equilibrium. Both a destructive process and a creative one can be sustainable. Stability does not necessarily mean immutability, although it may include it as a special case. More often than not, sustainability means consistency and predictability of change. And this brings this category closer to the concept of “stability”. But it would be wrong to identify these categories.

“Stability” is a more complex category; it includes a comprehensive assessment of the nature of the interaction (and possible consequences) of a set of interrelated and mutually influencing elements. In assessing the stability of a political system, it is important to compare the functioning of the system with its real capabilities, which form the “regulatory” and “self-regulatory” potential of the latter. There are several various types system capabilities:

-- extraction (extraction) opportunity, i.e. extraction (mobilization) of material and human resources (finance, support, attraction of talent, etc.);
- controlling, i.e. keeping the behavior and activities of various social groups and institutions under control;
-- distributive (distribution) possibility, i.e. placement and distribution of resources available in society in accordance with actual needs;
-- responsive capability, i.e. timely consideration of diverse requirements (challenges) coming from society as a whole or from individual groups;
-- communication opportunity, i.e., using popular ideas, slogans, symbols in society, the ability to increase the efficiency of interaction of all elements of the system.

A system with significant (large-scale) capabilities can not only maintain stability, but also stimulate the necessary changes. The balance between stability and change is one of the most important indicators of the effectiveness of a political system.

Thus, we can conclude that “stability” as a concept can characterize only those processes and phenomena that are characterized by changes, cause-and-effect patterns of both linear and probabilistic properties. This also applies to political stability. A political system that, in the process of its functioning, violates the framework of identity, that is, comes into conflict with its own nature, loses stability.

An indicator of destabilization is the results of the functioning of the political system that were not expected and are unacceptable (undesirable). Assessments of stability (instability) depend both on the availability of relevant information and on the ideological and political positions of participants in political processes, subjects of political life and activity. Therefore, the development of special procedures (indicators) that make it possible to objectively assess the state of the political system and the degree of its stability is of particular importance.

There are at least three aspects to keep in mind. The first is systemic, including patterns and trends in the holistic, complex development of the political sphere of society, the processes occurring in it at a specific historical time. The second is cognitive, based on the presence of the functioning subject (subjects) with the necessary timely and sufficiently complete information about events, phenomena and processes developing at different levels of political management. The third is functional, consisting of plans and programs of subjects of the political process and taking into account possible and real results political activity.

The content of the functioning of the political system is political activity, which has specific features and essential features. First of all, political activity has a clearly defined target social orientation. Each of its subjects (bodies of state power and administration, political parties, movements, blocs, etc.) has its own interests, the implementation of which is the meaning of their participation in political life. Behind each of them are certain social (socio-demographic, national, professional, settlement) groups.

A political system that is capable of combining different interests, instilling skills in cooperation and harmony, coordinating group and corporate political activities can be classified as stable political systems.

Political activity is inextricably linked with the problem of power and the nature of its functioning. The government can be supported by the broad masses and various associations of citizens, or it can also cause rejection. Support can be, firstly, so-called “situational”, which is based on society’s assessment of specific decisions made by government bodies, the political course pursued by the state, public statements, specific political actions, and the personal qualities of political leaders. Secondly, it is diffuse, extending primarily to the political regime, which embodies the most characteristic features of the relationship between society and the state. It represents a unique set of positive assessments and opinions that helps society accept (or at least tolerate) the actions of power structures as a whole. Diffuse support is characterized by a number of characteristic features, in particular, the duration of the course, the close connection with the processes of socialization and the acquisition of political experience by individuals, the focus on assessing the political regime as a whole, and not government officials.

An important component of diffuse support is trust. It arises due to the satisfaction of different groups of the population with the activities of, first of all, power structures that make decisions that are adequate to their social expectations.

Support for the political regime is carried out at two levels: elite and mass. The main factor of elite support is the degree of socio-economic development, which ultimately determines the amount of resources to be redistributed between various groups of people. Mass support for the authorities consists in the acceptance by the majority of the population of values (freedom of speech, pluralism of opinions, independence of the media, etc.), on which a specific political system of social and political norms (constitutional, legal, moral, etc.) is implicitly or explicitly based .), determining the behavior of political leaders and power structures. The main conditions influencing mass support for the existing regime include the longevity and sustainability of democratic transformations in society, the degree of state participation in economic management, social security of the individual, national equality, constant growth in the standard of living of different groups of the population, and real personal security.

Taking into account the dialectics of objective and subjective in any political processes in which different groups of the population are participants becomes important in political activity. A feature of the Russian mentality is the personalization of political life, which means the orientation of Russians not so much on political programs and parties, how many on the personality of political leaders (government leaders). Hence, criticism of the latter was sometimes perceived as criticism of the political system as a whole and was persecuted in every possible way, and the strengthening of personal power did not cause active protest.

For the ordinary citizen, both those who participated in political life and those who did not actively participate in it, a sense of community with the leader (or his immediate circle) has always been important. It gave a sense of stability, especially in the face of radical change. The inertia of political sympathies was actively exploited by all political leaders, who used their “past merits” in the absence of new ones. One should agree with the position of R. Bendix that “there are important bonds between people that can contribute to the stability of society; the actions of each member are oriented towards the actions of others, and all people attach special value to the collective entities in which they participate.”

In assessing the subjective aspects of political activity, it is important to take into account the following aspects:

-- political positions and the political role of specific leaders in current and past socio-political situations;
- the ability to critically analyze social realities and one’s role in political practice;
-- ability to express and defend national (group) interests;
- value orientations, moral standards, motives and attitudes of political participation.

Freedom of political choice and pressure from group (corporate) interests can, under a certain set of circumstances, have a decisive impact on the political behavior of a leader, which can result in a serious destabilizing effect on the entire political system. Its scale and consequences will ultimately be determined by objective prerequisites (conditions). The coincidence of negative subjective and objective preconditions can lead the political system to a state of extreme instability (crisis) and even self-destruction. Something similar happened in 1991 with the USSR.

A situation of high negative activity of certain political forces is possible, using objective prerequisites (conditions) for their political purposes, but choosing inadequate methods of activity for this. Such influences on the political system (and through it on the entire society) can lead to short-term success. But ultimately, a “pendulum effect” arises when both public sentiment and political process begin to drift into the opposite side, and these forces are defeated. As an example of a destabilizing effect on the political situation, we can cite the actions of the State Emergency Committee in August 1991.

Political instability and some disorganization of society in the first half of the 90s are the result, first of all, of the government’s radical policy, focused on the introduction of a market economy as the only factor capable of transforming the entire complex of complex public relations. In reality, they are amenable to purposeful modification only as a result of the use of organizational, managerial, scientific, technical, financial, economic, spiritual and moral measures. At the same time, the state cannot avoid performing a regulatory function not only in the economic sphere, but also in the entire system of social relations.

The use of illegitimate means of struggle for the realization of corporate interests creates a threat not only to the political system, but also to the entire society. Particularly dangerous is the possibility of unleashing a civil war or other large-scale violent actions, both by supporters of the political regime and by its opponents. The result of such a confrontation could be a political revolution leading to a change of power and the establishment of a new political regime. History knows many examples of coups, most often carried out in conditions of crisis of the political system or in totalitarian societies, where the mechanism for changing government leaders was either completely absent or turned out to be ineffective. The arrival of a new leader as a result of a coup, as a rule, stabilizes the political system for a certain time, but this stabilization is short-lived if the issues that gave rise to it remain unresolved. political struggle contradictions.

A political system cannot be stable if the ruling elite subordinates its main activities and the innovations it initiates only to its own interests and ignores the interests of the majority. In this case, “it can only rely on force, deception, arbitrariness, cruelty and repression.” Its subjective activity comes into conflict with the objective needs and nature of society, which leads to the accumulation of social discontent and leads to political tension and conflicts.

Conflicts play an ambiguous role in the functioning of the political system. Their occurrence is an indicator of a certain trouble or aggravated contradiction. But conflicts by themselves cannot significantly affect the stability of a political system if the latter has mechanisms for their institutionalization, localization or resolution. “To say that irreconcilable conflict is an endemic feature of society is not to say that society is characterized by constant instability.”

These words of R. Bendix are fair, although with great reservations they can be attributed to interethnic conflicts, which are difficult to transform in any way and the consequences of which can be the most destructive. This is largely explained by the fact that the reasons that cause them are, as a rule, complex in nature. Among them are “existing or newly emerging social differentiation along ethnic boundaries, unequal access to power and resources, legal and cultural discrimination, propaganda of xenophobia and negative stereotypes.” The interethnic rivalry that arises on such a basis can take on harsh forms and continue for years (or even decades), shaking the foundations of the political system of society.

Thus, the presence of valid mechanisms for the rapid detection, prevention and resolution of conflicts remains a necessary condition for the effective functioning of the political system and an indicator of its stability.

The political system, being open, experiences not only internal, but also external influences that can cause its destabilization under certain conditions. The most important indicator of the stability of a political system is its ability to neutralize negative influences from the outside.

The main forms of implementation of the latter are subversive activities carried out by special services and organizations, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, threat of force, etc. An adequate and timely response to such external influences makes it possible to protect the state’s own national interests and achieve favorable conditions for their implementation . Negative external influence on the political system may not be purposeful, but may be a consequence of general planetary difficulties and unresolved problems.

At the same time, external influences can also be positive for the political system if the foreign policy pursued by the state does not contradict the interests of the world community. Peoples are interested in the consistent implementation of democratization, humanization and demilitarization of world politics, in the development of measures to ensure the survival of humanity in the conditions of the crisis of modern society and the sharp deterioration in the quality of natural factors. Taking these global needs into account in political practice evokes the approval and support of other countries in the world community, which strengthens the position and authority of the state and its leaders in public opinion both abroad and within the country.

Let us remind you that the Fund's rating has been published since the fall of 2012 on a monthly basis. Within its framework, experts assess the level of socio-political sustainability in all constituent entities of the Russian Federation on a 10-point scale, where 10 is the maximum score, 1 is the minimum. The assessment is accompanied by the publication of the most notable events of the month that could have a positive or negative impact on the level of sustainability or were of a resonant nature. At the same time, the regions are divided into 4 categories according to the degree of socio-political stability and sorted within their category according to the dynamics of the rating over the last month.

How did the socio-political situation develop in April? The latest document states that April “passed in the Russian regions without serious incidents.” The exception was incidents that were not directly related to the socio-political situation (a high-profile murder in Belgorod, a fire in a psychoneurological hospital in the Moscow region, resonance in Dagestan in connection with the terrorist attack in Boston).

The foundation’s experts associate the main political intrigues “with the activation of law enforcement agencies, developing in three main directions”: the “anti-corruption” campaign (“within the framework of which criminal cases were initiated against officials of local administrations”); attack on representatives of the political elite closely associated with opposition parties (arrest of deputy of the Arkhangelsk Regional Assembly of Deputies Alexei Peunkov - “A Just Russia”, detention of the mayor of Berdsk Ilya Potapov - Communist Party of the Russian Federation); large-scale inspections of non-governmental organizations with the aim of forcing them “to assume the status of a “foreign agent”). “Not all claims seem justified, which indicates the bias of law enforcement officers, and this affects the climate in the regions,” explained the head of the Fund, Mikhail Vinogradov.

The next group of problems for regional elites was “instability in both federal level, and when developing criteria for assessing the effectiveness of governors.” The uncertainty of the future fate of Dmitry Medvedev’s government created “natural difficulties in the communication of regional leaders with federal officials.” Communication between federal and regional officials was complicated by contradictions between “government-approved proposals from the Ministry of Regional Development to evaluate the work of regional heads” and “political assessments of the work of heads of governors given by presidential structures.”

As we predicted earlier, the Foundation’s specialists note that “the process of abolishing direct elections of heads launched in the regions so far, as expected, does not go beyond North Caucasus“, while “projects for extending the cancellation of elections to regions outside the Caucasus ... are unlikely to receive federal support in the coming months.” The statement by “Ramzan Kadyrov, who spoke in favor of direct elections in Chechnya” is regarded “as an attempt by the head of the republic to improve his status among other North Caucasian leaders.”

Top 10 events of April 2013 in regional policy, according to the Foundation, were the following: the appointment of Vyacheslav Shport as acting governor of the Khabarovsk Territory; abolition of direct elections of heads of Dagestan and Ingushetia; approval by the government of the Russian Federation of the report of the Ministry of Regional Development with the rating of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; inspections of NPOs in the regions; Valentina Matvienko’s initiatives to transfer the offices of large companies to the regions; murder of 6 people in the center of Belgorod; arrest of a deputy of the Arkhangelsk Regional Council of Deputies from A Just Russia, Alexei Peunkov; detention of the mayor of Berdsk Ilya Potapov; growing tension in relations between Ingushetia and Chechnya; arrest of the director of grant programs of the Southern Regional Resource Center, Mikhail Savva.

As for the breakdown of regions, the top ten with maximum socio-political stability (over 8 points) included Yamalo-Nenets autonomous region, Ivanovo region, Khakassia, Mordovia, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Kaluga Ulyanovsk, Tyumen, Amur and Penza region. They are joined by a dozen with high socio-political stability ( from 7.0 to 7.9 points), which were made up of: Belgorod, Sakhalin and Sverdlovsk region, Sakha, Rostov region, Mari El, Nenets Autonomous and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrugs, Nizhny Novgorod and Magadan Regions. And, as they say, let these regions continue to remain in their top tens. Regions with average stability (from 6.0 to 6.9 points) were also identified, which included Moscow and St. Petersburg, where things are going with varying degrees of success.

Meanwhile, among the problem regions that received the least favorable forecast of socio-political stability (less than 6.0 points), the strongest drop in stability was noted in Smolensk (4.4, a drop of 0.4 compared to March), Arkhangelsk (4.5 , – 0.4), Bryansk (5.3, – 0.3), Yaroslavl (5.8, –0.2), Volgograd (5.9, – 0.4), Pskov (6.7, – 0.4), Kaliningrad (6.5, – 0.2) and Kirov (5.9, – 0.2) regions, as well as the Stavropol Territory (6.1, – 0.4) and Kalmykia (although the level of social -political stability and increased by 0.1 compared to March, but amounted to 4.0). Among common reasons worsening of the situation can be attributed to poor roads, healthcare and housing and communal services tariffs. Negative influence Problems with governors and other officials also had an impact on socio-political stability.

The list of the most unstable regions is traditionally filled with national republics: Dagestan tops it with 1.4 points, followed by Ingushetia (2.2), Kabardino-Balkaria (3.3) and Karachay-Cherkessia (4.2).

Many regional experts believe that the rating of socio-political stability of regions by the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation generally reflects the real state of affairs in the territories. But some of them indicate that the rankings do not always correctly select events that had an impact on the development of the situation. This opinion was expressed by the director of the Institute of Socio-Economic and Humanitarian Research of the Southern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Viktor Avksentyev: “The fact that events that did not receive it before are now being publicized indicates a destabilization of the situation in the region. And the rating probably reflects this. But this is determined by other factors and signs. Those events that are noted in it took place, but there were also other events that were more significant for the stability and instability of the region, which are not mentioned in the ratings.”

The same opinion is shared in Tatarstan. The fact that the level of stability in the republic was assessed at 6.4 points did not surprise local political scientists, but the list of factors that influenced the assessment attached to the rating was criticized by them. For example, in this list, among the “plus” factors are “the launch of a new plant for the production of industrial electronics in the Laishevsky district” and “the launch of automobile production in the territory of the Alabuga SEZ Explorer" “The opening of factories has no direct relation to socio-political stability,” says Nikolai Ignatiev, associate professor of the department of political science at Kazan Federal University. - This could be taken as a decisive argument only in conditions of crisis development. Socio-political stability is still largely measured by the relationship between government and society, opposition and government. And these parameters are in no way visible in the given list of influencing factors.”

Without a doubt, the point of view on the ground is different, but it is also necessary overall rating situation in the country. Presenting the first issue of the rating, Mikhail Vinogradov commented on his initiative as follows: “The decision to publish a new rating of regions was made due to the obvious lack of integral assessments of the socio-political climate in Russian regions. Most of the published rating studies, as a rule, are limited to assessing the potential of current governors or contain exclusively economic assessments (for example, in terms of assigning credit ratings), weakly associated with social and political risks. Assignment of ratings (on a 10-point scale) is given taking into account both long-term and medium-term factors (competitiveness of the economy, the presence of sources of self-development, the presence of a system for resolving socio-political disagreements) and current events.”

It seems to us that the Foundation was quite successful in this.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Conditions and factors of political stability

political stability social system

Political stability- a stable state of society, allowing it to function effectively and develop in external and internal influences, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the process of social change.

The term “political stability” appeared in English and American political science, where it was used to analyze changes in the political system and search for optimal mechanisms for its functioning.

The state of political stability cannot be understood as something frozen, unchangeable, given once and for all. Stability is considered as the result of a constant process of renewal, which rests on a set of unstable equilibria between system-forming and system-changing processes within the system itself.

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relationships dominates, fighting the community and continuity of goals, values and means of their implementation. At the same time, stability is the ability of subjects of socio-economic and political life to resist internal and external actions that disorganize the system and neutralize them. In this understanding, stability is perceived as the most important life-support mechanism for the development of a social system.

The main thing in political stability is to ensure stability, which is manifested in legitimacy, certainty, efficiency of the activities of power structures, in the constancy of the norms of values of political culture, the familiarity of types of behavior, sustainability political relations. It is known that the greatest successes were achieved by those societies that traditionally focused on the values of order. And on the contrary, the absolutization of the value of change in society led to the fact that the resolution of problems and conflicts was achieved at a high price. In order for development and orderliness to coexist, consistency, consistency, phasing of changes and, at the same time, a realistic program capable of connecting goals with means - resources and conditions are necessary.

It is the choice of goals of political changes that correspond to the means, capabilities, and ideas of people that determine the orderliness (norm) of development. Transformations divorced from their real economic, social, cultural and psychological prerequisites, no matter how desirable they may seem to their initiators (elite, ruling party, opposition, etc.), cannot be perceived as the “norm”, “order” by the majority of society. The reaction to unprepared changes and disordered development is overwhelmingly destructive.

The degree of political order is also influenced by the dynamics of social interests different levels communities and ways to ensure their interaction. It is important here not only to take into account the specificity, autonomy of interests, and multiple orientations of activity, but also to understand their compatibility. In society there must be zones of coordination of interests and positions, uniform rules behavior that would be accepted by all participants in the political process as order. The formation of a political order occurs on the basis of the presence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

As for the ways of regulating the dynamics of social interests of society, they can be confrontational (conflict) and consensual. The first type is based on the possibility of overcoming or even sometimes eliminating a certain group of interests. In this case, violence is considered the only force for political integration and the achievement of order. It is considered as an effective method of solving emerging problems. The consensual type of regulation of social relations is based on the recognition of different social interests and the need for their agreement on fundamental problems of development. The basis for this consensus is general principles, values shared by all participants in political action. The most dangerous thing for the political order is the loss of confidence in political and moral values and ideals on the part of the people.

Political stability and political order are achieved, as a rule, in two ways: either dictatorship or the widespread development of democracy. Stability achieved through violence, suppression, and repression is historically short-lived and illusory in nature, since it is achieved “from above” without the participation of the masses and the opposition. Stability based on democracy, a broad social base, and a developed civil society is another matter.

Stability consists of the attitude of the population to the existing political power, the ability of the political regime to take into account the interests of various groups and coordinate them, the position and condition of the elite itself, and the nature of relations within society itself.

There are absolute, static and dynamic political stability.

Absolute (complete) stability of political systems is an abstraction that has no reality. In all likelihood, such stability cannot exist even in “dead” systems, devoid of internal dynamics, since it presupposes not only the complete immobility of the political system itself and its elements, but also isolation from any external influences. If absolute stability is possible with high level prosperity, the enormous strength of traditions, the leveling of inequality, the precise system of power, then its destabilization under the influence of both External factors and the increase in internal crisis phenomena will only be a matter of time.

Static stability is characterized by the creation and preservation of immobility, constancy of socio-economic and political structures, connections, and relationships. It rests on ideas about the inviolability of social foundations, the slow pace of development, the need to preserve those who are conservative in the dominant ideology, and the creation of adequate stereotypes of political consciousness and behavior. However, the viability of a political system with such a degree of stability is extremely limited. This condition may be the result of rigid resistance to both external and internal changes(systems closed type). Sometimes political systems of static stability try to improve their status by, say, carrying out “active” external (militarization, expansion, aggression, etc.) and domestic policy. But, as a rule, if these attempts at modernization do not coincide in time, do not take into account the objective progressive course of development, do not rely on a broad social base of interests, do not take into account geopolitical opportunities and the reaction of the world community, then the destruction of the political system and the transformation of a “closed” society into a more mobile one occurs social education capable of adapting to changing conditions.

The current state of the social environment is characterized by a new dynamic level of political stability. It was developed by “open” societies that have learned the mechanism of renewal and consider socio-economic and political changes within the existing socio-political environment as a stabilizing factor.

They are able to perceive and assimilate internal and external impulses that transform them, and organically incorporate into the democratic process mechanisms not only for preventing, but also for using conflicts to maintain the stability of the political system.

Dynamic systems have the necessary degree of stability, stability, ensuring their self-preservation and at the same time not being an insurmountable obstacle to change. They are possible only in a democracy. Under these conditions, the state of stability is always relative; there is a regime of constant self-correction of the political system. Having summarized a huge amount of factual material, S. Lipset concluded that economic development and the competitive nature of political issues are compatible.

In a society with many problems economically, socially and political development democracy complicates solutions to problems of political stability. In conditions of economic inequality, lack of civil society, acute conflicts, and a large number of marginalized groups, democracy can turn out to be a very risky form of development. The democratic type of development has different possibilities in liberal, pluralistic systems.

One of the main prerequisites for political stability can be considered economic stability and growth in well-being. The close relationship between economic efficiency and political stability is obvious: the socio-economic factor influences the place and distribution of political power in society and determines the political order. It is known that economic crises, declines in production, and deterioration in the standard of living of the population often led to the destruction of the political system. Experience of changes in Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe showed that the strength of dictatorial regimes ultimately depended on the success of their economic system. Economic weakness and inefficiency inevitably lead to political collapse. Sufficiently high rates of economic growth and the absence of pronounced disproportions in income distribution are also important.

A condition for stability is the presence in society of a balance (consensus) of the interests of various groups, which shows the objectivity of the existence of a sphere of potential consent of a political nation. A political nation is a community living in a single political and legal space, the laws and norms of which are recognized as universal, regardless of class, ethnic, religious and other differences. A political nation is a product of a political system as a specific type of social production.

The balance of interests ensures the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system, the necessary degree of approval and acceptance of democratic rules and norms of political behavior. But not only the willingness of citizens to defend various purposes and most contribute to the process of adaptation of the political system to new situations and changes, but also the presence of social trust, tolerance, political consciousness of cooperation, respect for the law and loyalty to political institutions.

The basis of political stability is a strict separation of powers, the presence of checks and balances in the functioning of various branches of government. A large flow of “filters” - interest groups, pressure groups, parties, parliamentary commissions and committees can reduce quantitative and qualitative overload of the political system to a minimum. Reducing the social space for direct, immediate forms of pressure (participation in the activities of the executive branch, multi-stage, articulation and aggregation of interests can maintain political order and political stability.

The main subjects of internal political stability are the state and political cells of society. Moreover, depending on the activity they show, they can also act as objects of the political process. There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization,

Mobilization stability occurs in public structures, where development is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize a goal for a certain period. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, general civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take upon themselves the responsibility to express the interests of society and are capable of ensuring a breakthrough for society during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; state of war and the combat capability of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society that can separate the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena) in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems does not feel the need for change as long as their status allows them to maintain their social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general period6 or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of any specific social and political subjects, it arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of power and society emerges, which is necessary for the “conduct of deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensures the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly through the legitimation of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of management functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of the gradual strengthening of the position of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts here are legalized and resolved by civilization in other ways, within existing system, the belief that the country is prosperous compared to others is cultivated, and the dynamics of welfare growth are maintained.

An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system is open, there is a possibility of balancing between the growth of the extraction, regulatory function and response to the attitude of society to public policy. The political system, without claiming to be the main subject of social changes, is designed to support existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

The dissatisfaction of the masses with the policies of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis, destabilizing society as a whole and its subsystems.

It is the contradiction between the government and society that is the equal cause of the instability of society.

Factors of instability include the struggle for power between competing factions of the ruling elite, the creation of a threat to the integrity and very existence of the state, the personification of power, the predominance of corporate interests of the ruling elites in state policy, the presence of interethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of political power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinaire in politics, etc.

Instability can manifest itself in such forms as a change in the political regime, a change of government, an armed struggle with the ruling regime, the activation of opposition forces, etc. A change of government and peaceful forms of activation of the opposition lead to a change in political leaders, a change in the balance of forces within the political elite, but in general the political The regime can remain stable, as can political ideas, structures and the way policies are implemented. Clearly expressed political instability is associated with the emergence of an immediate threat to the political regime, when the failures of its policies are combined with the disintegration of state power and the decline of the regime’s legitimacy, and the opposition has the opportunity to overthrow the existing government.

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be considered as a problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification, determined by internal and external incentives.

Among the methods used by the political elite to ensure political stability and political order, the most common are the following: socio-political maneuvering, the content of which is to weaken the opposition of the “disadvantaged” part of society (the range of methods of maneuvering is quite wide - from separate deals, temporary political blocs to the proclamation of populist slogans that can distract public attention); political manipulation - massive influence of the media in order to shape public opinion in the desired direction; opposition forces were introduced into the political system and their gradual adaptation and integration; use of force and some other methods.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

Various interpretations of the concept of political power; its types, features, subjects and objects. Characteristics of traditional, charismatic and rational-legal types of legitimacy of power as an important condition for political stability.

abstract, added 08/10/2011

The essence and indicators of political stability. Interethnic conflicts, the reasons that cause them. Conditions and methods for ensuring political stability. Political stability in Russian literature and its definition in Western political science.

test, added 11/10/2010

The history of the separation of political psychology into an independent branch in the twentieth century. Principles, methodology and specificity of political-psychological research. Discussions regarding the definition of the subject of political psychology. Typology of political culture.

test, added 03/08/2011

Civil society in the structure of the mechanism of functioning and development of the political system. Theoretical and methodological foundations for a comprehensive analysis of the political elite. Political factors of stability of modern society, legitimate support.

abstract, added 11/23/2009

Types and functions of political culture. Political socialization in relation to a specific individual. Basic political values. Features of Russian political culture. Dependence of citizens on the state. The most important types of political subculture.

abstract, added 01/14/2010

The importance of political culture for society and the political system. Features of Russian political culture. A type of political culture characteristic of America. Values, types of political culture by subject. Functions of political culture.

abstract, added 11/05/2010

The effectiveness of the political regime in the conditions of transformation of the political system. The attitude of citizens to political power, its decisions and actions, values and social orientations. Problems of recognizing the legitimacy of existing political power.

abstract, added 09/26/2010

The concept of political power and its distinctive features. Basics government controlled. Consideration of the historically established features of political power in Russia; studying its legitimacy during the period of the USSR, perestroika and at the present stage.

abstract, added 10/01/2014

Concept and characteristics of a political system. Expression political interests various classes, social strata and groups. The structure of the political system of society and trends in its development. Type and functional characteristics of the political system.

abstract, added 11/14/2011

Collective and selective incentives for the recruitment of supporters by leaders of political organizations. The heterogeneity of political culture in Russia, the history of its formation and the current state. Directions in the formation of political culture and the functions of the media.

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political Stability"

SAMARA 2006

Political stability is an integral part of the general concept of state stability. Synonyms for “stability” are “constancy”, “immutability”, “steadiness”. “Political stability is considered as the psychological ability of the population to maintain calm behavior, regardless of external or internal unfavourable conditions. Political instability develops only in cases where the mass of people are psychologically prepared to react aggressively to any socio-economic events” (A.I. Yuryev). The disruption of psychological and political stability is caused by an increase in tension in problem areas society. That is, the presence and escalation of destabilizing factors in society. The level of political stability in a society can be measured. An indicator of political stability is the ratio of the level of social/political aggressiveness of the population and the level of social/political subordination of the masses. However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, even minimal, level of stability is absolutely necessary for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can vary significantly and vary - from balancing on the brink of a large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability of political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only levels or degrees of stability and instability, but also different types of political stability. In this regard, researchers distinguish, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to change and the influence of the environment, and, secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment. An example of the latter can be some political regimes that functioned in pre-Soviet and Soviet Russia. Russian experience convinces that an authoritarian, charismatic leader is capable of ensuring the stabilization of society on the path to a breakthrough to new frontiers of social and economic progress. The reign of any of the strong, reformist-minded political leaders we take - Peter I, Alexander II, early Stalin - everywhere we see grandiose socio-economic results, the speed of which cannot be compared with the time frame in which such transformations took place. were carried out in the West. However, as soon as the energy at the top weakened for some reason, the development of society was hampered, stabilization

Political stability in Russian literature is understood as:

A system of connections between different political entities, characterized by a certain integrity and efficiency of the system itself.

Orderly processes in politics, the inconsistency and conflict potential of which are regulated with the help of political institutions.

Agreement between the main social and political forces regarding the goals and methods of social development.

The state of the political life of society, manifested in the sustainable functioning of all political institutions existing in society, associated with the preservation and improvement of structures, with their qualitative certainty.

The set of political processes that ensure the existence and development of political subjects in the political system.

You should also turn to the most popular approaches to determining political stability in Western political science:

A). First of all, stability is understood as the absence in society real threat illegitimate violence or whether the state has the capabilities to cope with it in a crisis situation.

Stability is also considered as a function of democracy, which includes, among other things, the participation of citizens in government through the institutions of civil society.

b). Stability is also interpreted as the functioning of one government for a certain long period of time, suggesting, accordingly, its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities.

V). The presence of a constitutional order can also be considered a determining factor for stability. S. Huntington, in particular, defines stability according to the formula “order plus continuity,” assuming that the development option leading to the specified goal is one in which the model of the organization of power retains its essential characteristics for a long period of time.

G). Stability as the absence of structural changes in the political system or as the presence of the ability to manage them. In other words, in a stable system, either the political process does not lead to radical changes, or - if such changes are nevertheless observed - they are subordinated to a strategy developed in advance by the ruling elite.

Thus, as N.A. Pavlov emphasizes, one of the most significant problems in the functioning of the political system is ensuring its stability. This means the system maintains its institutions, roles and values under changing conditions social environment, the implementation of its main functions. Stability and sustainability of a political system is a state when any deviations in the actions of political subjects are corrected by the implementation of established, legitimized norms.

Political stability should also be understood as component the general state of stability of the state. This interpretation concept adds a new dimension to the emerging concept of “sustainable development” of society. Political stability is ensured not only by the action of political factors themselves, the balance of elements of the political system, and the stability of political relations. An indispensable condition for political stability is stable relations between the peoples living on the territory of the country and the state.

Stability is correlated with the situational and operational parameters of political dynamics, and sustainability - with its strategic, historical dimensions. Stability in the country can be achieved through a tactical and temporary agreement between the main political forces, but the strategic stability of political life may still be very far away, as was the case in France in February 1848, then the workers and bourgeoisie, who originally formed the Provisional Government, were already in In June of the same year they clashed on the streets of Paris in barricade battles. Organic stability, inertia, as opposed to simple stability, are not simply associated with the easily disturbed balance of two or more social forces, their more or less unstable truce, but with the action of a certain integrating formula, into which it is cast for a relatively long time political culture the whole society. So, political stability expresses a state of political dynamics in which a temporary balance (or balance) of the forces of the main political factors has been achieved, after which subsequent destabilization and disruption of this balance is possible. The processes of establishing temporary stability in the absence of strategic stability are very characteristic of many political regimes in Asia and Africa; conditions opposite to stability and stability are instability and instability. An extreme form of instability of political dynamics is a systemic crisis in all spheres of public life, the prolonged and growing nature of which sometimes leads to revolutions and the collapse of the old political system. Classic examples of such political cataclysms are the revolution of 1789 in France, the events of 1917 in Russia, or degradation, anomie, and then the collapse of statehood in Somalia, torn apart by warring clans during the civil war. A. de Tocqueville notes two significant reasons that gave rise to the instability of the political dynamics of France, which led the country to the Great Revolution in 1789: firstly, a radical change in the balance of power between the two leading classes, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, when the latter seized bureaucratic control over the management of French society, and secondly, the decline of the old political institutions that maintained the previous balance of social forces. He adds to this that the administrative reforms of 1787 (provincial assemblies, etc.), which dramatically changed the institutional structure of France, increased its political instability, and thus the reforms brought the revolution closer.

Conflicts play an ambiguous role in the functioning of the political system. Their occurrence is an indicator of a certain trouble or aggravated contradiction. But conflicts by themselves cannot significantly affect the stability of a political system if the latter has mechanisms for their institutionalization, localization or resolution. To say that irreconcilable conflicts are an endemic feature of society is not to say that society is characterized by constant instability."

These words of R. Bendix are fair, although with great reservations they can be attributed to interethnic conflicts that are difficult to transform in any way and the consequences of which are the most destructive. This is largely explained by the fact that the reasons that cause them are, as a rule, complex in nature. Among them are “existing or newly emerging social differentiation along ethnic boundaries, unequal access to power and resources, legal and cultural discrimination, propaganda of xenophobia and negative stereotypes.” The interethnic rivalry that arises on such a basis can take on harsh forms and continue for years (or even decades), shaking the foundations of the political system of society.

The main forms of implementation of the latter are subversive activities carried out by special services and organizations, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, threat of force, etc. An adequate and timely response to such external influences makes it possible to protect the state’s own national interests and achieve favorable conditions for their implementation . Negative external influence on the political system may not be purposeful, but may be a consequence of general planetary difficulties and unresolved problems.

At the same time, external influences can also be positive for the political system if the foreign policy pursued by the state does not contradict the interests of the world community. Peoples are interested in the consistent implementation of democratization, humanization and demilitarization of world politics, in the development of measures to ensure the survival of humanity in the conditions of the crisis of modern society and the sharp deterioration in the quality of natural factors. Taking into account these global needs in political practice evokes the approval and support of other countries in the world community, which strengthens the position and authority of the state and its leaders in public opinion, both abroad and within the country.

Bibliography.

1. Zhirikov A.A. Political stability of the Russian state. M., 1999.

2. Makarychev A.S. Stability and instability in democracy: Methodological approaches and assessments. // Policy. – 1998. – No. 1.

3. Pavlov N. A. National security. Ethnodemographic factors // National interests. – 1998. – №1.

4. Koroleva G.I. Russia: in search of a formula for national revival // Social and Political Journal. – 1994. – No. 1-2.

What else to read

Abstract: History of the development of hygiene 1. The development of hygiene in primitive and slave societies. The emergence and development of hygiene has a centuries-old history...

Formation of estimated liabilities and reserves for vacations As in 1s 8 Hello, dear blog readers. Lately, in my consulting work, I have quite often...

Puff khinkal in a pressure cooker Puff DAGESTAN KHINKAL Puff khinkal is often prepared in Dagestan. A very tasty, but high-calorie, masculine dish....

Abstract: Political stability. Political stability

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

What else to read

THE LAST NOTES

Categories