Conditions and factors of political stability. Political stability. The essence and indicators of political stability

The political preferences of the people are stability.

The political predilections of the authorities are control over the people to ensure stability.

Vladimir Borisov

As a result of mastering this topic, the student should: know:

• the concept of political stability;
• basic approaches to the study of political stability;
• features of political stability in Russian Federation; be able to:
• analyze and predict political stability in the modern world;

own:

Skills for determining the degree of stability of a political system

Concept of political stability

Political stability is the main mechanism of public administration, highlighting the main problem of scientific analysis and forecasting of the political situation, where government decisions that are somewhat distant from politics come into force.

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relationships dominates, reflecting the commonality 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 resist internal and external actions that disrupt 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 term “stability” (from the Latin stabilis - stable, constant) means strengthening, bringing into a constant stable state or maintaining this state. In general theoretical terms, categories such as “immutability” and “stability” are close to the concept of “stability”. Thus, immutability implies a process in which, within certain time and spatial intervals, the state of the objects under consideration remains the same.

Stability is characterized through the ability of acting actors to maintain changes within given boundaries, within certain parameters, and also indicates the ability of the system to restore disturbed equilibrium. Stability in itself does not contain an indication of this or that quality of a process or state: both a destructive process and a creative one can be sustainable. It also does not necessarily mean immutability, although it may include it as a special case. As a rule, sustainability implies constancy and predictability of changes, which brings this category closer to the concept of “stability”. But it would be wrong to equate sustainability with stability.

The concept of “political stability” in political science and social literature is represented by many definitions that are in a certain way related to the concept of political stability.

You can select three main approaches to an understanding of sustainability and stability. In the first case, they are used as characteristics of different states of the polity - static and dynamic, respectively. Political stability is defined as “a system of connections between various political entities, which is characterized by a certain integrity and the ability to effectively implement the functions assigned to it,” and to implement them “for a long time without sudden changes". In a social context, stability appears to be a combination of progress and social solidarity, a balance of power among the main political factors. In other words, stability is a state of development with social consensus regarding the rules by which development takes place. The definition of sustainability is mainly given from the standpoint of system analysis, characterizing “the ability of a system to restore disturbed equilibrium” within the framework of “its strategic, historical dimensions.”

The second body of work does not contain the above distinction; either one of the concepts is not used at all, or both are used, but as synonyms. Thus, S. Huntington’s famous work “Political Order in Changing Societies” is an example of combining the concepts of stability (the main, most frequently used concept) and sustainability (sometimes replacing it).

In the third group of works, the concepts of sustainability and stability are contrasted with each other: sustainability is understood as a negative quality, “ossification”, “resistance”, “the cause of internal political instability” that impedes the reform of society.

notice, that common feature The three approaches provide a systemic context for understanding sustainability and stability, which is justified and in many cases useful. Considering that sustainability is understood and perceived differently, we will use only the concept of stability as a state of society, characterized by the ability to modernize without serious social upheaval.

The authors of the textbook “General and Applied Political Science” V.I. Zhukov, B.I. Krasnov academically reveal the essence of the concept of “political stability”, who note that “political stability is a stable state of the political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of external environment and internal factors, maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change.”

In modern political science there is no single point of view on the concept of political stability.

As modern Russian scientists, including L. N. Alisova and Z. T. Golenkova, note, the category “stability” can be legitimately used to characterize fairly complex systems that retain their identification and operate in conditions of relative instability.” I would like to emphasize that the concept of stability is applicable to characterize only those processes and phenomena that are characterized by changes, cause-and-effect patterns of both linear and probabilistic properties.

The Russian scientist A. S. Makarychev notes that “stability, although it is a “multidimensional” phenomenon, should be described in “comparative categories,” that is, involve comparison with the states of the political regime or system in which it functioned before.”

At the same time, Russian political scientist A. S. Makarychev identifies a number of approaches to defining “stability”, which are accepted by both Western and Russian political science.

• Stability - absence in society real threat illegitimate violence or whether the state has the capabilities to cope with it in a crisis situation.
• The determining factor for stability can be considered the presence and maintenance of constitutional order in the country.
• Political stability is often seen as a consequence of the legitimacy of government.
• Stability is interpreted as the absence of structural changes in the political system or the presence of the ability to manage them.
• Stability is interpreted as a model of behavior and a social attribute.

The concept of “stability” in the conceptual field of political science has different definitions. A number of researchers understand “political stability” as a certain state.

Thus, the definition of “political stability” by the domestic political scientist Yu. V. Irkhin is as follows: this is “the state of the political life of society, manifested in the stable functioning of all political institutions existing in society, in compliance with legal, political and moral norms, as well as the most important social traditions , which have developed in it, in a peaceful resolution conflict situations, which generally allows this social system to function and develop effectively, while maintaining its structure and qualitative certainty.

Today, the most relevant definition is that proposed by Professor M. A. Vasilik:

“Political stability is a stable state of society, allowing it to function effectively and develop under conditions of external and internal influences, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the process of social change. [...] The state of political stability cannot be understood as something frozen, unchangeable, given once and for all. Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relationships prevails, reflecting the commonality 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 influences that disorganize the system and neutralize them. In this understanding, stability is perceived as the most important mechanism for life support and development of the social system.”

I would like to dwell on the basic conditions of political stability:

• 1. Stable economic growth, accompanied by an increase in the middle strata of the population (“middle class”) and corresponding changes in political culture.
• 2. A high level of political culture, the presence of democratic values ​​recognized by the majority, which makes it possible to coordinate opposing and conflicting interests, goals, and positions.
• 3. The presence of democratic traditions, tolerance (tolerance) in society, respect for the law and loyalty to political institutions. Compliance with certain “rules” by participants in the political process, based both on mutual agreement and on the fear of effective sanctions from the “partner” for violating them.
• 4. Ensuring maximum free access to political institutions for non-traditional social groups (previously not participating in political life). Such provision makes it possible to maintain the loyalty of the masses towards the political system.
• 5. Creating opportunities for realizing the interests of the majority of social groups in the economic sphere. The absence of such an opportunity gives rise to the desire to “press”, “put pressure” on government bodies in order to obtain additional material advantages and improve their financial situation. A “chain reaction” occurs: groups are drawn into a kind of competition to “extort” material wealth, and since the authorities cannot provide everyone equally, a field of conflicts, confrontation and social tension opens up.
• 6. Recognition by the military of civilian authority or at least a neutral attitude towards it. Political stability is a matter of concern for the ruling political forces and political leadership.

Modern Russian society is experiencing a crisis stage of its development, which is characterized by such a state of the social system when all its connections and processes are determined by the area of ​​critical values, i.e. it is unstable. This situation is associated with the socio-economic transformations being carried out in the country. Political instability and the lack of conceptual strategies in the field of development of external relations, national interests, regional policy of Russia, the lack of verified socio-economic programs lead to uncertainty in the sphere of ensuring the security of Russian society.

It should be noted that many researchers consider instability to be the basic state of developing systems. For example, Russian scientist V.S. Egorov presents “...nonequilibrium and instability as the main general states of the system,...and...equilibrium and determinism as a special case of nonequilibrium and indeterminism...”. In his opinion, the initial state for a social system is “... disequilibrium and instability, non-linear development...”, and society is considered by him as “... an open system, which is characterized by disequilibrium, instability, non-linear development and its irreversibility. ..” .

The problem of instability was studied in most detail by S.P. Kurdyumov and I. Prigogine. They quite rightly define instability as the inability of a social system to manage changes and cope with them. The instability of society is characterized by a lack of stability and the inability to develop in accordance with changing conditions.

In connection with the above, I would like to emphasize that along with the concept of “political stability” there is the concept of “political instability”.

Political instability- this is an increase in socio-political tension in society, an inability to achieve, on the basis of a compromise of the interests of various politically significant social groups, national agreement on the choice of the path of further development and, in particular, on reforming the economy and political system.

Signs of instability are:

• the inability of the political system to function and survive for a long time without drastic changes;
• inability of the system to combine different interests, instill skills for cooperation and harmony, coordinate group and corporate political activity;
• an increase in the level of political violence and protest sentiments in society, as well as the likelihood of a change in the regime or governing bodies of the state.

An indicator of destabilization is the results of the functioning of the political system that were not expected and are unacceptable. As Russian political scientist V.V. Lokosov notes, any social system has its own entropy limit for each vital parameter, crossing which means the death of the system under consideration as a whole.

A factor of instability may also be the lack of a developed political culture conducive to civilized participation in the political life of the country.

Domestic political scientist O. F. Shabrov believes that an ineffective government cannot remain legitimate and therefore stable for a long time.

In conclusion, I would like to note that instability is inversely proportional to the level of legitimacy of the regime, the development of political institutions, increasing socio-economic mobility, the pace of economic development, improving the network of political communications, consensus within the elite and other similar factors. Today, political instability is a feature of most political systems due to the global economic crisis and the collapse of political regimes in the East.

• Alisova L.N., Golenkova Z.T. Political sociology. - M.: Mysl, 2000. - URL: http://society.polbu.ru/alisovajpolitsociology/ch38 all.html
• Political science: encyclopedic Dictionary/ General ed. and comp.Yu. I. Averyanov. - M.: Publishing house Moskovsk. commercial University, 1993. - P. 281.
• http: //slovari.yandex.ru/diet/gl_social/article /14013/140l_3349.htm
• Social stability. A Dictionary of Sociology / John Scott and GordonMarshall. - Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online.
• Shapovalenko M. V. Unstable stability of transit societies. - URL: pravoznavec.com.ua/books/320/24642/18/

The political system of a society must not only be democratic, providing all citizens with equal opportunities to participate in the political life of society, but also stable. The problem of stability, given the huge number of political coups, revolutions, the threat of terrorism, and international tension, in modern society comes to one of the first places in terms of importance.

Political stability is the ability of a political body to self-preserve in conditions that threaten the existence of the social system.

Of course, in countries with different political regimes, such as authoritarian and democratic, political stability will not be the same. At first glance, the most stable regime is an authoritarian regime. An eloquent example is Stalinism, which for 20 years (30s - early 50s) was considered in the West the toughest and at the same time the most stable political system. Here stability represents the absence of structural changes in the political system. In an authoritarian system, no political processes lead to radical changes, and if they do occur, they are subject to a premeditated strategy developed by the ruling party or elite. Indeed, the mass repressions of the 30s in the USSR, which shocked literally the whole world and were capable of sweeping away any democratic government, did not affect the Soviet system at all: all actions were pre-planned and well organized. The people rallied even more tightly, as the newspapers wrote then, “around the Communist Party and Comrade I.V. Stalin.”

In democratic countries, the main factor of stability is the presence of constitutional order. However, great importance is attached to development and dynamics in strengthening it. Political scientists define stability using the formula “order plus continuity”: no matter what changes a democratic society undergoes, and it is always characterized by high dynamism, the organization of power over a long period of time must maintain its main institutions and properties unchanged.

There is a distinction between “minimal” and “democratic” stability. The first of these two terms simply means the absence of civil wars or other forms of armed conflict on the territory of the state. This kind of political stability can be achieved through authoritarian methods. In turn, “democratic” stability is associated with the ability of democratic structures to quickly respond to changing public moods. Political stability is considered, from this point of view, as a function of democracy, which also includes the participation of citizens in government through institutions civil society.

If stable power is understood very simply, as is done in authoritarian regimes, then it can be achieved by allowing one element of the system to suppress all others. Democracy, on the contrary, excludes a situation where any political institution (party, group, etc.) gains an absolute advantage over its opponents. Participants in the political process in a democracy must have sufficient power to protect their interests, but not enough to monopolize power.

When comparing the two types of political regimes, it turned out that the most typical cases of liquidation of democratic regimes, in contrast to authoritarian ones, were not associated with internal conflicts, but with the invasion of foreign states or coups with the participation of the military.

History shows a certain asymmetry of instability. Numerous cases have been recorded of the overthrow of authoritarian regimes by authoritarians, and of democratic ones by authoritarians. But there are no convincing examples of one democratic regime eliminating another. From this we can conclude: the fall of democracies is always associated with violent actions of those groups or political forces that do not recognize the legitimacy of a given form of government.

In a democratic society, political stability directly depends on the population's support for a given political system and its fundamental values. The American scientist D. Searing, exploring this issue, pointed out the following features of the stability of a democratic society:

The higher the level political participation, the stronger the society’s support for the political “rules of the game”;

The main social forces advocating for the strengthening of political order are (in increasing order): public opinion in general, social activists, candidates for elected positions, members of parliament.

In the 90s, our country underwent serious political changes associated with the transition from socialism to capitalism, the collapse of the one-party system, and the destruction of the stable social structure of society. This means that Russian society has moved from one type of political stability (authoritarian) to another (democratic). It, as it turned out later, entered a long phase of political instability associated with frequent changes of government.

During the 90s, under one President (B.N. Yeltsin), more than 10 governments changed. However, reshuffling government cabinets does not necessarily lead to a change in the political regime. An example is Italy, where governments changed frequently over a longer period of time - during the 70-90s, however, the country was considered politically stable.

Some experts, in particular the German political scientist E. Zimmermann, understand political stability as the functioning of one government for an extended period of time, which, accordingly, assumes its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities. Government stability then appears as the ability of political administrators to govern increasingly effectively as their time in office increases. He identifies several patterns associated with achieving this kind of stability:

The length of time a government remains in power is inversely proportional to the number of parties in parliament and directly proportional to the number of seats occupied by pro-government parties;

A one-party government has a better chance of staying in power than a coalition government;

The presence of factions within a government reduces its chances of remaining in power;

The greater the fragmentation of forces in parliament (including the opposition), the more likely the integrity of the government is;

The more seats opposition and anti-system forces have in parliament, the less likely the government will be to survive for long.

Even a quick analysis political events 90s confirms the validity of the above. Indeed, the government of E. Gaidar, which adhered to radical economic reforms, existed as long as pro-government parties had strong positions in parliament. This happened in the wake of the decline in the authority of the Communist Party in the early 90s. Later, when the reforms stalled and financial situation people's situation deteriorated sharply, the Communist Party began to gain more and more political weight. The demand for social rather than economic reforms has now come to the fore. The number of political forces supporting the President and the government in parliament has decreased. The President was increasingly forced to make compromises and concessions to the communists, changing the composition of the government (following the change in political sentiment in the State Duma).

The political experience of Russia in the 90s allows us to conclude that a one-party or politically homogeneous government has a better chance of staying in power than a coalition government. Thus, the government of V.S. Chernomyrdin lasted longer than the government of E.M. Primakov. Another conclusion: the greater the fragmentation of forces in parliament, the more likely the integrity of the government composition is. The President of Russia spent a lot of time and effort on splitting the State Duma and maintaining the previous composition of the government, bargaining, sometimes openly for money, sometimes with promises of political concessions, with various factions and luring them to his side.

The strategy of compromises and concessions makes us think that the political stability of society, and not only the Russian one, represents a balance (equilibrium) of political forces. The latter are expressed by the actions of the various political actors discussed above. The idea of ​​balance suggests that stability requires balance. If the power of one political force is balanced by the equal power of another or other agents of the political process, then aggressive actions are unlikely.

The idea of ​​balance of power is dynamic in nature. It speaks of the stability of those parts or elements that are mobile and changeable. Stability between strictly fixed elements is expressed by other concepts, for example, “monopoly of the dominant party,” “order through repression and suppression,” “unanimity in society,” etc.

Under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, any manifestations of instability, in particular freethinking, political threats, citizen discontent, deep splits in society, i.e. cultural, ideological and socio-economic conflicts, are harshly suppressed. However, undemonstrated or unexpressed political discontent gradually accumulates, hides underground and breaks out with redoubled force and aggression. The experience of the tsarist autocracy and the Bolshevik rule, which represented authoritarian types of regime, testifies to this.

In a democracy, any signs of instability are met with a different reaction, which usually boils down to a search for compromises and solutions that satisfy most political forces involved in the process. The instability of a democratic regime that relies on the support of the popular masses increases when this regime does not live up to the aspirations and hopes of the people. In an authoritarian regime, such a dependence is not observed. In a democratic society, as its name suggests (power of the people), in principle the population should have very high expectations about their participation in politics and making decisions that are most important for the fate of society. But if politicians ignore such participation or disappoint the hopes of the people, discontent in society grows and the level of political instability increases.

The result of political disappointment of the population is usually decreased trust in political leaders and institutions of power. It is known that in transforming societies, and Russia is one of them, there is a growing mass distrust of citizens towards political parties and civil institutions in general. More than 2/3 of those surveyed in December 1998 did not trust virtually any institution. Two significant trends are emerging: general political apathy and withdrawal from political life, on the one hand, and the increased ability of political parties to attract citizens to their side through undemocratic methods, on the other.

Scientists sometimes refer to the decline in people's trust in political authorities as the distancing of civil society from political elites. The weakness of political institutions and the political apathy of the population are far from harmless things, as they might seem at first glance. Together they can pave the way for authoritarianism or foreign intervention. An authoritarian personality who has seized power from the hands of a weakened democracy will certainly hide behind slogans of strengthening democracy through military means. It will be armed with quite correct, but not used by the previous authorities, political formulations such as that democracy must have teeth, it must be able to defend itself with arms in hand, etc.

Among the factors of political instability, scientists sometimes include the insufficient capabilities of the political elite, as well as the predominance of “narrow” and personalized parties. Both signs were present on the Russian political scene in the 90s. The weakness of the political elite was manifested in the fact that it was not they, but the entourage of the President of the country, often referred to as the “family,” who appointed the highest officials in the state and reshuffled the government. Many well-known parties in Russia were personified because the departure of their leader from the political scene could actually lead to their collapse. When the LDPR failed to register for the State Duma elections in October 1999, it transformed into Zhirinovsky’s party. The new name more accurately expressed the essence of this political association: it was a party of one person.

Scientists also include among the factors of political instability: the weakening of the mechanisms of socio-political control, the degree of trade and financial dependence on external sources, the number of repeals or suspensions of the constitution, the number of changes in the structure of the executive branch, the percentage of cabinet members from among the military, the number of soldiers per 10,000 population, percentage of military expenditures in the budget, annual income per capita, budget-GNP ratio, unemployment and inflation rates, budget deficit, state of government loans, percentage of workers involved in conflicts with the administration of their enterprises, murder and suicide rates, number of demonstrations, uprisings, political strikes, assassinations, ethnic conflicts, territorial disputes, the spread of militant nationalism and religious fundamentalism, uncontrolled migration on a mass scale, imperfect political communication networks, lack of consensus within the elite regarding the procedures and norms of the functioning of power.

The risk of political violence, which was mentioned at the very beginning of the paragraph when defining stability, increases due to such circumstances as administrative corruption, feelings of political apathy and frustration in society, the difficulties of the initial phase of industrialization, the habit of using coercion by the government, government crises, high ethno-linguistic fragmentation , significant inequality in land use. To these must be added the threat of political terrorism, which, however, has a double impact on power: on the one hand, it undermines it, on the other, it unites it, forcing it to consolidate and oppose force to force. This happened in Russia after a series of terrorist attacks in Moscow and other cities in the fall of 1999.

SECTION 4. FORMATION OF HUMAN PERSONALITY

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 both at the federal level and in the development of 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 the “government-approved proposals of the Ministry regional development on the assessment of the work of regional heads" and "political assessments of the work of heads of governors, which are 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.”

The top 10 events of April 2013 in regional politics, according to the Foundation, were the following: the appointment of Vyacheslav Shport as acting governor 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 on office relocation 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 included: Belgorod, Sakhalin and Sverdlovsk regions, 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. Problems with governors and other officials also had a negative 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 Associate Professor of the Department of Political Science at Kazan University federal university Nikolay Ignatiev. - 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 local perspective is different, but a general assessment of the situation in the country is also necessary. 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.

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political Stability"

SAMARA 2006

Political stability is an integral part general concept stability of the state. Synonyms for “stability” are “constancy”, “immutability”, “steadiness”. “Political stability is considered as the psychological ability of the population to maintain calm behavior, despite external or internal unfavorable 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 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 the 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 of a real threat of illegitimate violence or the presence of the state’s 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 or 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 that the system preserves its institutions, roles and values ​​under changing conditions of the social environment, and carries out its basic 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 of the concept gives a new dimension to the emerging concept “ sustainable development» society. Political stability is ensured not only by the action of political factors themselves, the balance of elements of the political system, the stability 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 associated not simply 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 administrative reforms 1787 (provincial assemblies, etc.), which dramatically changed the institutional structure of France, increased its political instability, and thus the reforms brought the revolution closer.

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 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.

Thus, the presence of valid mechanisms for the rapid detection, prevention and resolution of conflicts remains a necessary condition 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, 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 foreign policy pursued by the state does not contradict the interests of the world community. The 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 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.

Bibliography.

1. Zhirikov A.A. Political stability 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.

Political stability - a stable state of a political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of the external and internal environment, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change.

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.

There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous And mobilization

· Mobilization stability occurs in public structures, where development is initiated “from above”, 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 able to ensure its progress 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 the status quo allows it to maintain its social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

· Autonomous stability type, i.e. independent of the desire and will of smb. specific social and political subjects, 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 government and society emerges, which is necessary for carrying out deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensuring 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 are legalized and resolved in civilizational ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in the well-being of the country in comparison with others is cultivated, and growth dynamics are maintained. welfare. An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

Factors of instability include the struggle for power between competing groups of the ruling elite, the creation of a threat to the integrity and very existence of states, the personification of power, the predominance of corporate interests of the ruling elite in state policy, the presence of interethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring continuity democratic power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinairism in politics, etc. Instability can manifest itself in such forms as changes in the political regime, change of government, armed struggle against the ruling regime, activation of opposition forces, etc.

Conclusion.

The central categories in political science are political systems and political regimes, which have an indissoluble connection. The political system oversees the implementation of activities related to the functioning of government, while the political regime is the way of organizing this system. Each country has its own political regime and its own political system, but many countries have similar features. There are three types of political systems: democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. From the point of view of the form of government, they distinguish: presidential, parliamentary, monarchical, aristocratic and republican political regimes.

Political regime, political system and political stability are all components of political science as the science of politics. Politics at one time has a huge impact both on the fate of entire states and on the fate of each person individually. This determines the formation and development of a special branch of scientific research focused on the study of politics.

Political knowledge is very important today for every person, regardless of his professional affiliation, since, living in society, he must interact with other people around him and the state.

Bibliography.

1. Pugachev V.P., Soloviev A.I. Introduction to Political Science. M.: 1998.;

2. Gadzhiev K.S., Political science: Textbook for higher educational institutions., M.: Logos 2001.;

3. Vasilik M.A. Political Science (online textbooks), Chapter 7, website http://uchebnik-online.com.;

4. Mukhaev R.T., Political science. Textbook for universities. M.: Prior 2000