Лекции по "Политологии"

The term "morals" under the maintenance - Latin analogue Ancient Greek etos (ethics). In Latin language there is a word “mos” (plural - mores), designating customs, the custom, a steady order. On its base of Tsitseron has formed an adjective moralis (moral) for ethics designation, naming it philosophia moralis. Later there is a word "morals" (moralitas) as the collective characteristic of all moral displays. In the dictionary of Russian of S.I.Ozhegova the morals are defined as “rules of morals and morals”, and morals, in turn, as “the rules defining behaviour, the spiritual and sincere qualities necessary for the person in a society, in also performance of these rules, behaviour”. In “the short philosophical dictionary” 1997 The morals, morals are defined as “a way of self-realisation of the person, its self-management and streamlining of human relations on the basis of general concepts about norms, principles and the ideals which are going back to“ value of good ”. S.A.mosquito during the same time a little differently interprets concept of morals. He understands as that“ direct reflexion of conditions of public life in consciousness of people in the form of categories of justice and injustice, good and harm, laudable and shameful, encouraged and blamed, honour, conscience, a debt, advantage ”.

In world social life it is possible to allocate four main approaches of scientists to treatment of mutual relations of a policy and morals:

The policy only then carries out the role when it is moral, that is it can and should use for self-realisation only is moral admissible means. Конфуций saw in self-improvement a basis of good management, virtue declared unique means of submission of people to an order. Плутарх considered what to trust disgraceful the power like arms mad a sword. For Platon and Aristotle obviously that the worthy should participate in the politician only. G.Mabli named a policy public morals, and morals - a private policy. ZH.-ZH.Russo appealed to policy and morals connection: who will want to study separately a policy and morals, that will understand nothing neither in that, nor in another, and everything that is moral harm, is harm and in the politician. T.Jefferson believed that all management skill consists in art to be fair. Life has shown that attempts completely to subordinate a policy of morals in the spirit of a moral absolutism doom her to an inefficiency and by that compromise both morals, and a policy. The history has shown unacceptability, danger and other extreme measure when the policy subordinates to itself completely ethical standards and values. If the political expediency thus substitutes simple requirements of honesty, decency, conscience there is a threat to the public order.

Policy out of morals. According to this approach, a policy and morals are independent and should not interfere in the competence each other. The morals are a business of a civil society, a private responsibility, the politician - area of an antagonism of group interests, free from morals. Many consider as the ancestor of such sights N.Makiavelli. In the well-known work "Sovereign" he asserted that the policy should consider a concrete condition of public customs, including moral perversity of people and if in the people civil virtues are not developed and in a society anarchy a sovereign has the right to use any, including immoral, means accrues. In private life he is obliged to be guided by the standard norms of morals. Макиавелли keeps morals as a regulator of private life of politicians, and also as a noble purpose justifying immoral ways of its achievement in this connection the opinion on it as about the apologist of a full separation of a policy from morals is represented incorrect;

Policy it is malicious. This position starts with policy and morals opposition as irreconcilable contrasts. Anarchists adhere to most consistently such position. The policy and its main carrier - the state, wrote the father of Russian anarchism M.A.Bakunin, “that is violence, domination by means of the violence disguised and frank”. Malicious, it continued, roots in the nature of a policy - in the power for “who is invested by the power, that under the invariable sociological law will by all means become the oppressor and the oppressor of a society”. Are close to them in this respect and марксисты. They treat a policy as inevitable in living conditions of operation of classes and a social inequality angrily. Negative estimations of a policy can be found and at liberal thinkers. So, N.A.Berdjaev wrote thereupon:“ At me disgust for "policy" which is the most ominous form of an objectivization of human existence, its ejection outside. It is always based on lie. The policy substantially is the fiction owning people, the parasitic outgrowth exhausting blood from people ”;

- Ethics of responsibility and ethics of belief of M.Vebera as attempt to find the permission of a problem of morals in the politician. This approach now divide the majority of political scientists which start with a recognition of necessity of influence of morals on a policy at the account of specificity of last. And it, according to Weber, consists in application by a violence policy.“ Specific means of legitimate violence … in hands of the human unions, - was written by him, - and causes feature of all ethical problems of a policy ”. To outline border of influence of morals on a policy, Weber divides morals into ethics of belief and ethics of responsibility. Ethics of belief mean persistent following to moral principles irrespective of, it will result in what results, without reckoning with expenses and victims. Ethics of responsibility, on the contrary, assume the account of concrete conditions, policy orientation first of all on its consequences, internal responsibility of politicians for those results of the actions which it was possible to expect, readiness to prevent большее angrily including by means of harm smaller.

In modern democracies the relation of a policy and morals, political and moral consciousness develop in such a manner that value of the moral beginning increases in the politician, even more often the political phenomena are exposed to moral measurement, a moral estimation, there are “очеловечивание politicians”, the policy receives more and more accurate humanistic orientation. For a humanisation of a policy and strengthening of morals by the best that system is not, “which shows to the citizens more and more high or even the highest moral requirements. Actually that system which, first of all, answers human character in its usual ambivalence is better: to bad bents of people puts necessary restrictions, but at the same time opens the greatest possible open space for the right and will of people to carry out self-development for their ability to good” - marks B.Sutor from Germany.

V. The Policy arises and is carried out for the sake of realisation of definite purposes. The purpose, means and result - the basic components of political and any other activity:

- The purpose - the ideal result developed by human thinking for the sake of which activity is carried out and which serves as its internal incentive motive. The policy prime target - harmonisation of a combination of private and general interests, than the state is authorised to be engaged;

- Policy means - tools, tools of practical realisation of the purposes, transformations of ideal motives into real actions. They represent concrete factors of influence of subjects of the power on weights: propaganda campaigns, the strikes, the armed actions, electoral struggle etc.;

- Policy methods are ways of influence and the use of its means. Among them violent and nonviolent methods, compulsion and belief are allocated.

The question on influence of the purposes and means for a policy being long since is a subject of hot discussions basically representatives of three points of view: moral character of a policy is defined by its purpose; priority influence on the moral importance of a policy is rendered by used means; both the purpose, and means are equally important for giving to the politician of humane character, and they should be commensurable with each other and with a concrete situation.

The most known supporters “целедоминирующего” the approach were N.Makiavelli and Vladimir Ilich Lenin (1870-1924). But the thesis has "the end justifies the means received a detailed theoretical substantiation and a practical embodiment at Jesuits - members of the Catholic award based in 1534 in Paris and operating and until now. Many centuries in public thought the opinion prevailed that for noble purpose achievement immoral means, for example, lie use are admissible also. The lie, information concealment, gathering and creation of compromising materials and in the world of a modern policy is considered quite admissible means of political confrontation though the political science and public opinion disapprove of it.

“Средстводоминирующий” the approach to a parity of the purposes and means of a policy starts with a moral priority of means over the purpose that characterises, first of all, supporters of a nonviolence in the politician. Mahatma Gandi (1869 - 1948) considered that the morals are embodied in a reality through means used in the politician for they express moral will of the person.

"The compromise" approach to a parity of the purposes and policy means recognises that these components play it, the politician, an own and important role. Convincing enough treatment of the general parity of the purposes and means in the politician from the point of view of its moral estimation was formulated by Nikolay Aleksandrovich Berdjaev (1874-1948): “the Purpose leaves in an abstract distance, means remain a direct reality. When apply malicious means opposite to the purposes the purpose never reach, all replace with means and about the purpose forget or they turn to pure rhetoric. The purpose makes sense only in the event that it to start to carry out now, here”.

VI. The Violence represents the deliberate action which is directed on destruction of the person or drawing to it of a damage and carried out contrary to its will. The political violence differs from other forms not only physical compulsion and possibility to deprive the person of freedom, to life or to put it irreparable physical injuries, but also organisation, width,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE POLITICAL POWER

 

The power means any possibility to spend in the given social relations own will even contrary to resistance, irrespective of on what such possibility is based.

Max Veber

I. All life of people inseparably linked with the power which is most a powerful tool of protection of human interests, embodiments of plans of people, settlements of their contradictions and conflicts. The Ancient Greek concept “архэ”, designating "power" or "domination", had also other value - первоначало or an original cause. It was, apparently, not casual coincidence, and is faster a vague guess about the power nature. It exists everywhere where there are steady associations of people: in a family, work collectives, any organisations and establishments, in the state. It is considered to be that by the nature and an origin the power - the phenomenon social. As the integral companion of development of a human society, it is shown in not political forms, and after occurrence of the states - and as the political power. The phenomenon of the political power in its generalised interpretation as coordination of actions of the most different organised independent groups is studied in a political science by its special direction - кратологией. The power - both the main problem, and the basic nerve of a policy. The power and is perceived to this day by people as "wonderful" means which allows a policy to be formed as the special party of human activity. According to Socrat (469-399 BC), the politician who operates the state and owns knowledge what is the blessing for people, is врачеватель a shower. The political power самовыражается in real ability of this or that social group or the individual to impose the will by means of special system of means of state-legal influence or compulsion, basically irrespective of, it is pleasant or it is not pleasant to all other people.

The power political acts as a key version of the power, possesses enormous creative abilities, represents the most powerful source of development of a society, the tool of social transformations and transformations. But it can become cruel and unfair force, the malicious demon shaking foundations of a society, breaking destinies of the countries and the people. Since antiquity at political thought constantly there is also a power condemnation. In one of Platon's dialogues it is told: “There is no human soul which will stand a temptation the power”. And later two with superfluous thousand years, acting in 1887 in English parliament, lord Ekton will declare:“ The power corrupts, and the absolute power corrupts absolutely … Great people almost always - wicked men … Among that conducts to degradation and demoralisation of the person, the power - the most constant and active force ”. The imperious relations objectively inherent in a society, are an original payment for life in it for to live in society and to be free from its rules of a hostel it is impossible, without them the human civilisation is impossible. Now in the scientific literature it is possible to count more essentially different 300 from each other power definitions. Anyhow, all of them reflect known axioms of the power which in Ivan Aleksandrovicha Ilyin's statement (1885-1954) look as follows:

- The government cannot belong to anybody besides legal power;

- The government within each political union should be uniform;

- The government should be carried out by the best people, satisfying to the ethical and political qualification;

- The political program of the power can include only realizable measures and reforms;

- The imperious political program can include only such measures which pursue the general interest;

- The government is essentially connected with distributed justice, but has the right and is obliged to recede from it in only case when when it is demanded by maintenance of national-spiritual and state life of the people.

II. Throughout all history of mankind the power of one people over others accepted at times the most freakish forms. In the ancient time gave rise to the power the physical superiority: who is stronger, that and corrects. In process of development of a civilisation the power began to be inherited. The capital has turned to later times in a power symbol - who owns it, at that and the power over other people. Thus, traditional sources of the power - violence, the inheritance, riches. In second half of XX-th century even more often began to write about knowledge as one more source of the power. John Gelbrejt (a sort. 1908) in the book ”New industrial society” (1967) wrote that if as an embodiment of energy of an industrial society money in a century of computer science the knowledge for the power of the informed class leans not against the property, on the earth or the capital, and on knowledge becomes that acted. Olvin Toffler (a sort. 1928) considers that in the end of the XX-th century there is “a power revolution” when violence and riches, remaining power factors, concede a priority place to knowledge as it underlies modern concepts of force and riches.

Set of attempts to explain the power maintenance it is possible to reduce to several basic theses:

Not which recognition of presence of the abstract power appearing self-identical, “the power in itself”; 

The understanding of the power as any quality or force which can be at the disposal of its time keepers to be descended, grasped, usurped etc.;

Power consideration as the relation assuming the consent of both parties - the manager and operated - to participate in it;

The identification of the power with resources which are used in the politician - power, will power, charm or is simple with charisma (гр. kharisma - divine favour, gift);

Transformation into the power of not political aspects of human life: riches - from economic, influences - from social, values, norms - from cultural spheres;

Power data to the dependence depersonalized by will of circumstances, or interdependence, that is the functions, doing people hostages of the political behaviour preset by traditions;

Power representation as means of political creativity in the course of perfection and harmonisation of rules and principles and forms of a human hostel.

Unequal treatments of a phenomenon of the power at the same time do not exclude each other, they fix different and its absolutely real aspects. In the modern politological literature it is possible to allocate, at least, three measurements of the power:

- According to administrative, directive aspect the power is understood as the domination providing performance of instructions of the power, whether it be the person or institute;

- Functional measurement, that is understanding of the political power as abilities and abilities to realise public management in practice, is caused by that it represents the relation between subjects and objects, political actors (separate citizens, their organised groups, parties, the states etc.);

- Communicative measurement of the power speaks that its departure goes by dialogue, with use of known language, to the clear both parties of the given imperious relation.

At the same time representatives of the majority of theories of the power recognise that its mechanisms have difficult hierarchical structure in which as the formal primary subject and a source властвования the people transferring this function to own official representative - to the state act. The last distributes powers among "carriers" of imperious powers on "horizontal" (legislative, executive and judicial branches of the power) and on “verticals (the central, regional and local authorities). Together they operate the country population (“ object ”властвования) on behalf of all society (“ the subject ”властвования)”. Such is formal-legal mechanism is put and in system of the political power of the Russian Federation. However actually in all modern states real carriers of the power, as a rule, are the elite and bureaucracy, that is officials and functionaries of powerful system of executive power at its different levels, and also various groupings of ruling elite between which spheres of imperious functions and powers and a control zone over society resources are distributed.

III. If to recognise that the political power possesses certain signs - domination of imperious will, presence of special management personnel, monopoly for a regulation of public life, the right to compulsion concerning a society and the person, legitimacy and the sovereignty becomes clear: its subject should possess, first of all, four qualities - will, the sovereignty, force and authority.

The will represents the fundamental quality of the political power expressed in ability to a choice of the purposes of political activity and mobilisation of all available possibilities for their realisation. Thus it is important to notice that the will should not outgrow in voluntarism, that is the subject властвования should follow strictly to objective laws of social development and consider a real parity of political forces.

The sovereignty of the political power is expressed in leadership of its decisions, formal independence of any external influence.

Force of the power results from set of material and ideological possibilities which it has for realisation of own decisions, for maintenance of effectiveness of published laws and decrees. These possibilities are defined by efficiency of is administrative-legal, military and propaganda institutes of the state, and also power of its financial and economic resources.

The authority of the power means a recognition people of legality and necessity of the political organisation under which power they are. It is the guarantor of political and social stability in a society. It it differs from the authoritativeness representing authoritativeness, constructed mainly on violence and compulsion.

The basic components of structure of the political power are objects and subjects, means (resources) and the process actuating all its elements and characterised by the mechanism and the ways of interaction between partners:

- The subject of the political power - the active, directing beginning of the power (the state and its institutes, political elite and leaders, political parties) which possesses certain qualities and forms the maintenance of imperious interaction through orders, orders, administrative personnel activity;

- The object of the political power (the individual, social group, a class, a society) - if is not present it, there is no also a power. The relation of object to the subject властвования can vary from fierce resistance to voluntary, perceived with pleasure, obedience. Submission also is naturally inherent in a human society, as well as a management;

- Resources - set of the means, which use provides influence on object of the power according to the purposes of the subject властвования. They can be utilitarian, compulsory and standard. Material and other social blessings concern utilitarian resources; to compulsory resources - measures of criminal and administrative influence; to standard resources - levers on private world, valuable orientations and norms of behaviour of the person. Resources concern:

Economic - material assets, money, the earth, minerals, etc.;

Power - the weapon, army, guarding structures;

Social - various privileges of the power, personnel selection;

Information - mass-media, knowledge and the information;

Legal - the constitution, laws, program documents of parties;

Demographic - the person as a resource creating other resources.

IV. Among functions of the political power four are allocated as the cores:

1) development of strategy of an administrative office of a society. Here two basic methods of actions are possible: a rigid regulation of social and economic, cultural-spiritual processes or indirect political influence when the power regulates not public processes, and the factors influencing their development;

2) protection of the basic political values fixed in constitutions. Among them four groups of values round which, actually, and all political life concentrates are allocated:

- National-state security and independence of the country as ability of the state to run the independent social and economic, political courses providing the sovereign power over the state territory;

- Legality and a public order - ability of the power to provide political and social stability in a society, observance of basic laws of the state;

- Economic well-being and the social justice understood as degree of satisfaction of the majority of the population by the financial position, system of distribution and redistribution of the public income;

- Freedom, participation in management of public affairs, the rights and duties of the person and the citizen where freedom is understood as a guarantee of the individual rights of the person, and participation in the power - as possibility of a political choice and the agreement of subjects and objects властвования;

3) maintenance of integrity of political system of the state that demands a subordination of all imperious bodies and institutes, and also their integration on the basis of uniform rules of law;

4) warranting of political continuity and social stability. In realisation of this function it is possible to allocate two levels:

The higher political management where the government is personified also continuity, stability is provided either inheritance, or an election system and appointments;

All politically capable population where the continuity and stability are provided with system of preparation and promotion of the managerial personnel for various institutes, and also system of political socialisation of citizens when they master political norms dominating in a society and value;