Лекции по "Политологии"

Political science subject are laws of formation and development of the political power, the form and methods of its functioning and use. The most general laws concern formation, development and change of political systems, категориального the device, the most essential and steady tendencies in displays and use of the political power. Depending on sphere the displays established by a political science of law can be divided into four groups:

- Political-economical laws of occurrence, functioning and development of political interests, concepts, the theories which are finding out a parity between a policy and economy;

- The sociopolitical laws causing functioning of the political power. The main thing in maintenance of stability of a society with it - the account of interests and requirements of various elements of its social structure, a finding of ways of harmonisation of these interests, destruction or softening of antagonisms, conflict situations, the crisis phenomena.

- Laws of functioning and development of political process: a priority universal over class and party in the politician; leadership of the law for all members of a society, division of the authorities; publicity in activity of the state and public organisations; political pluralism etc.;

- Politiko-psychological laws reflect relations between the person and the power and incorporate processes of political socialisation of the person, formation of political feelings, moods, valuable orientations, ways of influence on voters, formations of political leaders, gains and deduction of the power by them etc.

IX. At studying of the political phenomena and processes the political science uses various methods of research, characteristic for all social sciences. But there are such methods which in aggregate with others transform political science into independent scientific discipline. It, first of all, a system method, бихевиористский the approach (a special way of the analysis of the political phenomena through studying of behaviour of individuals and groups at execution of certain political roles by them), quantitative methods (statistical researches of political activity; biographical researches and polls; laboratory experiments, especially in sphere of the international relations), comparative techniques.

In the political analysis also such new methods, as cybernetic (the policy analysis through a prism of the information streams constructed on a principle of feedback, and networks of purposeful communicative actions and the mechanisms providing the relations of mutual relations operating and operated at all levels in a society and with environment) now are actively used; 2) communicative (disclosing of properties of a policy through studying of ways of dialogue of people developing in political space); 3) politiko-cultural (the researches which have put in the basis of a policy subjective orientations of elite and mass subjects to political objects which according to them altered forms of the behaviour, character of activity of political institutes and other parametres of functioning of the power), etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLICY AS THE PUBLIC PHENOMENON

 

The policy is the powerful drilling of firm breeds spent simultaneously with passion and a cold eye estimation. The purpose of such policy - achievement of a maximum reasonably possible.

Max Veber

I. As soon as the ancient person has provided to itself existence bases - fire, meal, dwelling, he has created two more largest spheres of own ability to live: art for self-expression (since rock paintings) and to the politician for dialogue with similar. Last arises in connection with complication of public life and necessity of realisation of such collective interests which did not give in to satisfaction without intervention of "the third force” in the form of the state and its institutes of the public power. Etymologically designating “that is connected with the state”, the politician, nevertheless, from the very beginning arises as the multiple-valued public phenomenon which completely not is not reduced only to the government or even to the state. The policy appears as the public work kind, each political fact is the fact social. At the same time any a little scientifically strict definitions of a policy invariably anyhow will are connected with relations concerning the power and the state. The known British political scientist, the author of popular textbooks David Held (a sort. In 1951) in the general view characterises a policy as struggle for the organisation of human possibilities, as the phenomenon of general interrelation (internal and external) social groups, institutes and the societies, caused by all kinds of ability to live of people in their public and private form. In its opinion, the policy finds the expression in cooperation, negotiations and struggle round questions of use, manufacture and distribution of resources, therefore “policy studying is, first of all, development of history of possibilities and history possibilities”.

The history of representations and development of ideas about the politician reflect both permanent complication of the real political world, and character of mutual relations of the person and the state during each concrete time. On the historical periods it looked as follows:

- On the first, государствоцентричном a stage (approximately till XVI century), the approach to a policy was based on position about the state as the carrier of the Supreme power over the person. It developed for streamlining and the best organisation of social life, and for a substantiation of necessity of its existence were involved or mythological and religious thoughts on a divine will, or reasonings on a natural order and rational character of the state form of association of people occupying given territory. All their political life has been included in an orbit of an attraction of the Supreme power, and in a policy is inherent some kind of a unipolar orientation the main thing in which was submission of the person to the state;

- At the second stage the maintenance of political life gradually changed. A policy and rules of a game of politics have definitively been separated from the ethical bases. In the politician began to see a field for maintenance of the consent and performance of a certain reasonable public contract of the state and a civil society, and also their representatives among themselves. Unilateral submission of the person established over the state ox gave way to mutual obligations of partners when a civil society in whole and its estates achieved a recognition of the natural right to put pressure upon the state mode, and even to change it. Thus the state still used unconditional domination over the citizen;

- In the XX-th century the third comes, социоцентристский a stage in development of views on a policy. On change to positions about monopoly of the uniform Supreme and sovereign government ideas of pluralism, the coordination of interests of the various social groups dividing among themselves influence on the state and a society come. With formation in the most developed countries of democratic systems the paradigm of vision of the world of a policy will be transformed also: in it transition from the state monocentrism to social polycentrism, from the uniform and indivisible sovereignty of a sovereign to participation in the power of all basic groups of citizens comes true. In the is formal-historical plan it meant that the priority is given to a society and people making it, instead of the state;

- Last decades new, already the fourth signs of approach are appreciable by the account, the big stage in evolution of understanding of the policy reflecting the newest changes in the real maintenance of political life of postindustrial mankind. The advanced consciousness and knowledge of the person of the beginning of 3rd millenium induce it to participation in various forms of self-management which quite often become transnational. These phenomena are meanwhile inherent only in the developed countries, but they testify to occurrence of new approaches to judgement of mission of a policy in the changing world.

II. Consideration of conceptual approaches to policy interpretation allows to draw a conclusion on existence of different social and its scientific parties, multidimensionalities its character. In a society of the politician acts in unity of three interconnected aspects:

- As sphere of public life;

- As one of many kinds of activity of social subjects, their collective and individual behaviour;

- As type of social relations - between individuals, small groups and big общностями.

In the first case of the politician it is considered in the form of a structural component of a society with the defined position inherent in it and a role but which thus possesses special substantial and functional properties. In the Marxist theory of the politician acts in a role of the regulating "superstructure" consisting first of all from the state organisation which provides developed imperious status quo for system of relations of manufacture and an exchange. At Tolkotta Parsons and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) political subsystem of a society carries out functions целеполагания and целедостижения. At бихевиористов (Harold Lassuell, Abraham Kaplan [1918-1993]) the political system is connected with control and distribution of resources. Scientists assign to a policy of function of the coordination of the general and private interests, realisation of the power, maintenance of a public order and a management of people, realisation of the valid purposes, regulation of resources and management of society.

The second type of an explanation of a policy is based on its treatment as a way of cumulative and individual activity of social subjects, a kind of human activity and behaviour in a society. In Marxism the main maintenance of a policy - race for power, actions on its gain and deduction. Max Veber (1864-1920) considers the given category as the enterprise and professional work. For Harold Lassuella and others бихевиористов a policy - a kind of social behaviour of individuals and their groups, characterised by installations and the motivations connected with participation in властвовании.

The third explanation of a policy includes it in a difficult network of social relations and communications. Still Aristotle defined a policy as the higher type of human dialogue, and Makiavelli saw in it a multilateral antagonism of various social subjects for the power in the state. Марксисты treat a policy as relations of classes concerning the government. There were also modern scientific models which classify a policy according to interactions of type the conflict - a consensus. Schemes of imperious relations where the policy is understood as a certain general structure for connection (consolidation) of different displays of social and political life (Moris Djuverzhe [a sort are developed. 1917]).

The maintenance of concept of "politician", despite development of scientific knowledge, constantly remains opened, being exposed to changes and additions in process of occurrence of new theoretical models. It shows futility of unequivocal definitions of a phenomenon of a policy, aspirations to catch its eternally escaping specificity in borders of once found logic. The term of "politician" practically is always used in several senses. So, known French political scientist Rajmon Aron allocated some its treatments:

The concept of a policy is used for a designation of the concept, the program of actions or actions of groups of people in relation to any one problem or set of the problems facing a society;

In other sense the word of "politician" concerns sphere of public life where compete or various political directions or the organisations confront. A policy - area or sphere in which persons or the groups of people having differing interests struggle;

In the third sense distinction of the term of "politician" concerns institutional measurement of a legal order and the traditions, a certain imperious system of this or that community of people, a way of its imperious organisation.

The relation to a policy as to inevitably multidimensional world is characteristic and for the American politological school. A.Renni, the professor of the Californian university, the author of the book “Management: conducting in a political science”, published in many countries, marked thereupon: “In the widest sense of the politician includes decision-making processes and compulsion processes in any groups which create and realise rules for the members”. It represents a policy as relations (dialogue) between social groups; activity of people; functioning of political institutes and the organisations; social behaviour; set of the political ideals extended in a society, ideologies, doctrines and morally-ethical values; orientations, predilections and experience accordingly individuals, groups, the nations, the people, civilisations; communication processes.

The Russian political scientist Elena Borisovna Shestopal allocates five most general aspects of understanding of a policy:

- As systems - the state institutes, parties, public associations;

- As processes - dynamic changes to which institutes, executors of different functions and a rule of a game of politics are exposed;

- As games by rules - hand-written (norms of the right) and unwritten (traditions, customs, norms of behaviour), regulating mutual relations in political sphere;

- As structures of certain values and installations, special ideological approaches to a policy;

- As the kinds of human activity including in political activity and professionals, and ordinary citizens and defining special types of their behaviour.

III. At the same time in all set of scientific representations about the politician there are also such theoretical designs, ways of an explanation of the studied political phenomena which generalise all scale of the ideas connected with them, estimations, feelings, representations. These basic in character representations about the nature and essence of a policy act as the original theoretical base on which all set of supervision and conclusions about various is built, described throughout centuries and millenia forms of a state system, the relation between the social classes dominating and subordinated by it, activity of structures of the public power etc. can name Such principles of understanding of a policy paradigms if to use entered into a scientific turn in the twenties ХХ century American Thomas Kunom (1922-1996) concept. In most general view this scientist treated a paradigm as logic model of statement and the decision of an informative problem. For a political science those paradigms which interpret its nature and essence, formation and development sources, distribution scales, the most important lines and properties of a policy among which are allocated have fundamental value:

1) a theological paradigm. The supernatural explanation of the divine nature of the power and the policy, completely excluding the person from among their creators, remained up to occurrence of works of Fomy Akvinsky who has confirmed other interpretation of the theological approach to the world of the political. The medieval thinker started with presence of 3 basic elements of the power: a principle, a way and existence. The first proceeds from God, the second and the third are derivative of the human right. Thus, both the power, and subjects of the power were defined not only supernatural display of divine will, but also will of the person. The power acted as a certain combination invisible, провиденциального management and human efforts. As it is possible to notice, at the heart of the theological approach to a policy and the power logic scientific knowledge logic and rational criteria, and principles of belief, inexplicable from the point of view of reason of conviction in потусторонних sources of creation of the world lie not. Now basically only philosophers-seminary students profess similar postulates, but the fact is that the theological paradigm has fixed a number of important characteristics of a phenomenon of a policy;

2) a naturalistic paradigm. With its help scientists try to explain the policy nature, proceeding from dominating value of factors of extrasocial, natural character. At formation of this paradigm special value was got by three approaches - geographical, biopolitical and психологизаторский:

- The first of them has led to formation in the end of XIX - the beginning of the XX-th centuries of geopolitics - the separate politological discipline proving dependence politicians from prirodno-geographical factors. This science and is capable to make today serious impact on political regulation of the international relations, variety of questions and problems of public life;

- The second approach has led to occurrence in 70th years ХХ century in the USA biopoliticians as independent discipline when for knowledge of political sphere of life of human communities the primacy of instinctive, genetically congenital properties of the person admits sufficient;

- For психологизаторского the approach which has arisen still in a XVII-th century, and today the basic idea are data of all political phenomena to prevailing influence of psychological qualities of the person;

3) социоцентристская a paradigm. It unites the widest group of the theoretical representations which authors unanimously recognise a public origin and the policy nature, that is it is considered by them as a certain form of the social organisation of human life, as a defining aspect of life of a society. In the widest plan supporters of these approaches try to explain the nature of a policy in two basic ways: one proceed thus from a priority external in relation to it of factors, others prefer internal factors of self-movement and policy self-development. Both those, and others state the judgements within the limits of separate theories and paradigms. Most original of them is Charles Shmitta's theory (1888-1985). This German scientist recognised that a policy has no own bases, scooping energy from all other areas of life. Without making separate sphere, the policy is formed as result of increase of human contradictions, increases of their intensity to a stage of relations of "enemies" and "friends". "Enemy", according to Shmittu, is set of the people resisting to the same set of individuals when the image of "stranger" means not the personal opponent, namely the public enemy struggle with which can accept and forms of its physical destruction. "Friend" are «», that is that set of people in relation to which the policy acts as association and integration means;

4) a cultural urological paradigm. Its creators recognise that integrity of a policy and its unity with a society is defined by integrity of the person, they consider a policy as a product of intelligent activity of people, and its main appointment - as realisation of creative functions of people. This paradigm does not allow to forget, as in the politician the person should be oneself and follow a principle «homo homini homo est» (“the person to the person - the person”);

5) a conflict paradigm. The idea of internal discrepancy, a conflictness of political life was recognised in XIX century the Scientists adhering to such sights, do not consider presence of conflicts as threat to political development of a society for the competition concerning scarce resources of the power or social statuses, prestige positions is regarded by them as sources of self-movement and evolution of political organisms. Influence of conflicts on political life is considered as exclusively constructive. Thereupon supporters of a disputed paradigm reduce all basic problems mainly to search of the most effective technologies of management by conflicts;

6) a consensus paradigm. In a counterbalance to a paradigm of conflicts, in a modern political science there was a direction which has made with a conceptual method of interpretation politicians a consensus. From the point of view of supporters of this approach, the unity of ideals, the basic социокультурных values and population reference points allows осознанно to regulate difficult relations between people, to resolve conflicts arising between them, to support stability in a society. Revolutions, sharp political confrontation are considered from this point of view as the organisations of a society falling outside the limits norms, as anomalies of political life. For the normal existence of the politician should interfere with occurrence of conflicts and crises, supporting a condition of "social solidarity» (Emil Djurkgejm, 1858-1917) to render constant «pedagogical influence» on citizens of the state (John Dewey [1859-1952]) etc.

IV. The French political scientist Moris Djuverzhe has formulated judgement according to which everything, or nearly so all in a human society has political aspect, and anything, or nearly so nothing belongs to a policy entirely. The understanding of the nature and specific properties of a policy assumes scientific comprehension of its communications and relations with other spheres of life of human societies. Coming under influence of economy, morals, the right, culture, the politician and itself has on them certain influence, finding thus new properties and qualities. Meanwhile existing in practice of political life the tendency of absolutization of functional communications between various spheres of public life quite often leads to the most serious deformations and politicians, and social life as a whole. Thereupon there is a necessity slightly more in detail to stop on similar parities:

- A policy and economy. The policy as a social phenomenon is formed on crossing of some sociohistorical tendencies. Therefore the reasons of its occurrence cannot be settled only by one of them, in this case - economy. As a whole economic processes are not "primogenitors" of political sphere. Basically the economy has this or that influence on a policy through social sphere, defining financial position of different social groups and causing thereby differentiation of social statuses of their members. In turn, the policy which was generated after occurrence and a diversification of industrial and exchange processes, too cannot be considered as the basic factor of development of economy. At the same time as the version of the imperiously-state compulsion of the politician keeps considerable регулятивные abilities of influence on processes in economic sphere in the form of economic policy. This ability of a policy is realised, first of all, in those situations when this or that social problem gets considerable social scale and starts to infringe on interests of a considerable part of the population or all state. In this sense character of political influence on economy can be triple: positive, negative or neutral;

- A policy and the right. Their mutual relations as a matter of fact are defined by features of ways of regulation of a social order inherent in them and technologies of application of the government. So, a policy genetically сориентирована on maintenance of group priorities in the government organisation for the policy "works" on the coordination and advancement of interests of the most viable social groups with collective requirements and the purposes. At the same time the policy always considers influence real, instead of the formal social centres, those forces which are capable to influence redistribution of resources and decision-making practically. System of legal regulation it is primary сориентирована on regulation of all social space as a whole, without allocating any group priorities. The right removes group pointedness of a political competition, making identical demands to all citizens of the state, irrespective of their party accessory, etc. For the right an activity major principle is the disposition «the law - a deviation from the law» (instead of «formal - real» influence as in the politician), therefore its regulators seldom operate in a prevention mode, relying basically on authorisation technics. More shortly, the policy in a society proves as the search mechanism of social development developing its projects, and the right - the giving mechanism to such projects of valid character;

- A policy and morals. The problem of a parity of a policy and morals occupies minds of thinkers on an extent not one millenium. In the problem centre always there were questions of moral influence on the power, abilities of a society to одухотворению a political competition. While the policy forces the person to estimate events and acts from the point of view of harm and advantage, benefit or a loss, the morals place the same questions in a plane of mutual relation of abstract Good and Harm, real and due. Morals - the special sphere of public life based on an estimation of any acts and actions of people from the point of view of justice and injustice, good and harm. It is based on certain understanding of sense of existence and mission of the person. The morals are not utilitarian for the separate person, it is useful and essential to society as promotes human race preservation. Unlike a policy, the right, economy the morals do not need special enforcement machinery and punishments. Its unique sanction - conscience, that is emotional experience of responsibility of the person before by itself, other people, a society, God. It - morals conductor, the internal judge who is carrying out self-checking there where public supervision is not possible.