Лекции по "Политологии"

Realisation of the political power in a society occurs to the help of the special political mechanism which main components are domination, a management, management, the organisation and control.

The domination of the political power meaning structurization in a society of relations of command and submission, organizational and legislative registration of the fact of division in a society of administrative work and privileges usually connected with it - on the one hand, and performing activity - with another. “Domination, - Max Veber wrote, - means chance to meet obedience to the certain order”. Domination is the form of the organisation of the power in a society. Domination is a political order at which one order, and others submit, though the first can be under democratic control of the second.

The management of the political power consists in development and acceptance of essentially important decisions for a society, in definition of its purposes, plans and strategic prospects.

Management is carried out through direct practical activities on realisation of the decisions accepted by the political power. Concrete administrative activity usually occupies the administrative (bureaucratic) device, officials.

The organisation assumes the coordination, streamlining, maintenance of interrelation of separate people, groups, classes, others общностей people.

Control provides observance of social norms, rules of activity of people and social groups in a society. It also carries out a feedback role with which help the power watches what consequences have its administrative influences.

V. One of the most specific properties of the political power is legitimacy. It represents the form of support, the justification of legitimacy of application of the power and realisation of the concrete form of government or the state as a whole, or its separate structures and institutes. Etymologically the word "legitimacy" originates from Latin legalis that in transfer means legality. However in political science legitimacy and legality are not synonyms. The legitimacy characterising support of the power by real subjects politicians, differs from the legality testifying to legal, legislatively well-founded type of board. In one political systems the power can be legal and not legitimate (mother country board in colonies), in others - legitimate, but not legal (for example, after a fulfilment of the revolution supported by the majority of the population), in the third - both legal, and legitimate, as, for example, after a victory of certain forces on elections.

The big contribution to the theory of legitimacy of the power was brought by Max Veber. It allocated three main types of legitimacy of the power:

1. Traditional legitimacy which is found thanks to customs, a habit to obey the power, belief in firmness of since ancient times existing usages.

2. Charismatic legitimacy which is based on belief in exclusive qualities, wonderful gift, that is charisma, the head which sometimes even idolise, create a cult of its person. Carriers of charismatic authority always appear in aura of the prophet radiating fertile light almost divine or perceived as such true and specifying to people is unique a right way. It is easy to find examples of the charismatic leaders which domination had strongly pronounced personal character in the Russian history. They always to some extent - “fathers of the people”, however legality and legitimacy of such leader falls, as soon as the belief in it избранность grows dull.

3. The is rational-legal (democratic) legitimacy as which source rationally understood interest which induces people acts to submit to decisions of the government generated by the standard rules. Legitimacy of the power in this case is based not upon a habit, and on a recognition of a rationality, rationality of an existing political order.

The modern political science fixes not only more a wide range of forms of political legitimacy, but also considers as its sources not one, and three subjects - the population, the government and foreign policy structures. In particular, by modern scientists it is recognised that political legitimacy can be initiated and formed not by the population, and the state, more truly, its government. In that case legitimacy is often identified with legality, legal validity of the government and its stability in a society. There are examples and that legitimacy can be formed by the foreign policy centres - the friendly states, the international organisations, transnational structures.

VI. New tendencies in development of the political power:

- Power democratisation, refusal of authoritative or totalitarian forms in favour of the democratic.

- Power internationalisation, growth of influence of the international and world problems of the power, a policy and the legislation of the separate countries;

- разукрупнение the political power, development of systems of its diversification;

- Negative process of increase of a conflictness between various branches of the power;

- High rates бюрократизации the device of power structures;

- Expansion of an arsenal of purely administrative technologies which more and more widely and even more often the political power uses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE INDIVIDUAL AS THE SUBJECT OF THE POLICY

 

Nobody has the rights to limit another during his lives, health, freedom or property.

John Lock

 

I. People, society as a whole - a basis, and the person - initial essence of a policy. The policy was created by the person reasonable, homo sapiens. Formation of political sphere, its systems, institutes made sense only so far as as allowed people to develop and more full to realise the possibilities conceiving beings. Personal measurement of a policy since antique times draws attention of thinkers and scientists. Most influential of the theories created thereupon and concepts in “Encyclopedias of management and a policy” (1992) are named the following:

- Platon's theory about an individual human nature;

- Thomas Gobbs's who has presented the person as a being pessimistic theory, movable in a society mainly the egoistical interest and constant thirst of the power;

- John Lock's considering the person by initially social being theory;

- Jean Jacque Russo's concept about “the noble savage”;

- The Marxist doctrine about social human nature and defining influence of a society, and also its way on formation of human qualities;

- The social Darvinism which has put forward ideas about inevitability and desirability of a competition in a society, a survival of the people most adapted for changes;

- бихевиористская Beresa Skinner's (1904-1990) considering human behaviour depending on influence of a society concept which in this connection is capable to create people required to it, manipulating social conditions;

- Konrada Lorentz's (1903-1989) biosocial concepts, Edward Wilson (a sort. 1929), etc. which insisted on stability of a human nature, an invariance of instincts of people and their hereditary predefiniteness.

People politicise not only because to it they are forced by public circumstances, but also for the sake of personal self-affirmation. The sense of a policy in this case consists in perfection of this or that party of life of people, rendering on it гуманизирующего influences. At the same time actually political activity is capable to put and harm to the person: any negative qualities of the person, on the one hand, and deformation of activity of political institutes - with another, can turn the policy blessing into harm. The policy as a special kind of dialogue between people develops on the basis of personally focused and repeating individual actions. The behaviour of individuals makes a direct reality, a policy fundamental principle. Therefore it is considered to be that what person, it plays what political roles, is that in many respects and a policy.

In real, daily expression of the politician represents any set of actions (actions) and interactions (интеракций) concrete subjects (actors) in sphere of their competitive struggle for the government, realisation of the vital interests. If to be guided by the widest and pragmatic approach it is possible to understand all as subjects (actors) of a policy those who takes real part in imperious interaction with the state, irrespective of degree of influence on decisions made by it and character of realisation of a state policy. In the politician the set of actors operates, but it is possible to carry to the cores only subjects of three types: individual, group and institutional (organizational).

To individual subjects James Rozenau (a sort. 1924) ranks three kinds of actors: the ordinary citizen, whose participation in the politician it is caused by group interests, the professional figure who is carrying out in the state of function of management and control, and also the private individual who is operating irrespective of the group purposes and not carrying out thus any professional duties. To group subjects usually carry various a generality and collectives (from time to steady, from local to transnational). Institutes also include all of the organisations which are carrying out representation and performing functions. All basic subjects are with each other in certain hierarchical relations. Depending on methodological approaches, at pyramid top can be or institute (the standard approach), or group (the approach from the point of view of interests), or the individual (бихевиоральный the approach). Considering as the basic political subject group, it is necessary to notice that promotion of the individual on the foreground at a policy explanation has the unconditional bases.

II. The Role of the individual in the politician is extremely specific. It needs to be considered in quality only one of subjects of the political power. Individuals are capable to act as the special purpose of activity of any system of board and the power. As a matter of fact, personifying the status of the person as concerning independent and free beings, whose interests to some extent resist to a society and the state, the individual symbolises sense and value of any collective activity. In this plan of the relation of the state and the individual express power and person relations - these two opposite principles of social life and two independent sources of the public power. Организуя joint life of people, the state always acts as the beginning of suppression and compulsion of people to maintenance of certain political usages and behaviour forms. The individual acts as the beginning of free and natural will which, exploiting the state, possesses own program жизнеутверждения and self-expression. And if the state is capable to select any way of the evolution the person will always aspire to protection of own advantage and freedom, happiness and life. Presence of these human aspirations makes a humanism core. Estimating the person as “a measure of all things” (Протагор), the humanism is capable to set absolutely definite purposes and principles to a state policy, acting as a reference point of self-development of systems of the power. Differently, the state and the individual personify two various source and a principle of the organisation of the power. Under all circumstances the state remains external force for the individual life possessing in relation to the person the major compulsory prerogatives, the rights and powers. However and the person in the conditions of democracy becomes the higher social value of political relations, directing a state policy.

III. Historically mutual relations of the person and the power developed in several models:

- The first model is presented патерналистскими (Конфуций) and этатистскими (Platon, Aristotle, Zarathustra) theories according to which the state possesses a conclusive priority and advantage before the person, it has initially the right to define the status and human rights, channels and limits of its political activity;

- The second model is based on a recognition of that at the heart of the state and its politicians should lie the rights and human nature. John Lock (1632-1704), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), James Madison (1751-1836) and other liberal thinkers insisted that the higher social value is the free person on the basis of which requirements all system of the government should be under construction. They developed arisen in the Athenian policy and the Roman right of idea of the sovereignty of the person. The state appeared result of the agreement of free individuals, citizens which limit its possibilities of intervention in their private life. Owing to it the state became under control to the people. The civil society, that is sphere of horizontal communications of individuals independent of the state, activity of its public associations was considered as the main sphere of realisation of the person. The specified model in known approach to its basic criteria is realised in the modern democratic countries of the West;

- The third model, median, developed many ancient thinkers calling for an establishment of harmonious relations between the state and the person, it has not lost the positions and now. Modern supporters of such model support that the state and the individual operated according to principles of solidarity and субсидиарности. Solidarity assumes that the blessing of everyone inseparably linked with prosperity (or easing) whole, with care of everyone about each other and about the state as an embodiment of civil bonds. Субсидиарность means that the state is obliged to assist those who not in a condition independently to provide to themselves worthy life who does not have for this purpose necessary means and spiritual forces. But such help should have selective and address character, without degenerating in support of a dependence.

IV. The Individual influences a policy the natural and acquired rights. They represent set of norms and principles which fix system of the political relations guaranteeing granting to the individual of certain freedom and the social blessings. Human rights have the standard and institutional (real) maintenance. In the first case they act in the form of universal, general requirements to the organisation of any system of the political power. It is a certain lath of requirements to which each system of the power should adapt. Some countries where collectivist values dominate, do not recognise a priority of human rights in comparison with the state (China, Iran, Bangladesh, Syria, Malaysia, etc.).

For the first time the legal expression of human rights have received in 1776 in the Virdzhinsky declaration which has been taken subsequently as a principle the Bill about the rights (constitution) of the USA. The same role the Declaration of human rights and the citizen has played, accepted in France in 1789 of Human rights have been fixed in the proclaimed United Nations of the General declaration of the rights and freedom of the person and the citizen (1948). The European convention on protection of the rights and freedom of the person has been accepted in 1950 and has had the development in the International pact about the civil and political rights (1966) and in a number of other certificates. In article of 2nd Constitution of the Russian Federation it is proclaimed that the person, its rights and freedom are supreme value, and their observance and protection - a paramount duty of the state.

In the widest understanding of human rights share on negative and positive. Such rights and freedom which are based on preventing to unreasonable intervention of the state and other persons in sovereign affairs of the individual concern the first of them. Positive laws are based on responsibility of the state for granting of the person of the certain social blessings, for example, the rights to formation, health protection etc. From the substantial point of view of the right and freedom of the person are grouped as:

- The civil or personal rights - a circle inherent in the person from a birth of the rights which define its autonomy and individuality, advantage and originality, protect from a power arbitrariness - the right to life, inviolability of person, freedom, etc.;

- The political rights which provide possibility of participation of citizens in a state and society administrative office, concern them a freedom of speech, the press, conscience, freedom to select and be the selected works etc.;

- The sociopolitical rights defining possibilities of citizens in sphere of manufacture, an exchange and consumption of material resources, in the field of the order products of the work and factors of material activity. Them still name “the rights of the second generation” as they have grown out of struggle for social guarantees and protection of the person in manufacture sphere (the right to work, to the property, freedom of enterprise activity, collective actions on protection of the labour law etc.);

- The cultural and ecological rights which concern to so-called to "the rights of the third generation” and reflect problems of social development of last third XX - the beginnings of the XXI-st centuries (the right to the world, inhabitancy healthy ecologically, a freedom of movement, etc.).

V. Participation of the individual in the politician shows practicability to them of the rights, shows, how much this sphere of life is capable to serve not only to interests of large social groups, but also inquiries and expectations of the usual person. Known American political scientist Dzh. Нагель defines political participation as actions by means of which rank-and-file members of any political system influence or try to influence results of its activity. Practical and purposeful forms of political participation can be characterised by scale and intensity. Degree and character of participation of the individual in political life is directly defined by the significant reasons, participation factors. The last are extremely various and connected with the roles, which individuals play to political practice (the voter, the active worker of party, a member of parliament etc.) . Factors of political participation are traditionally considered through two its global mechanisms - compulsion which does an emphasis on action external in relation to the individual of forces (T.Gobbs), and also through interest which, on the contrary, is guided by internal motivations of actions of the individual and difficult structure of the person (Adam Smith [1723-1790], Herbert Spenser [1820-1903]).

For the state protest forms of political participation of the population have special value. The political protest usually proceeds in conventional (in the form of the demonstrations resolved by the authorities, pickets) and not conventional forms (activity of the underground political organisations and the groups, the forbidden processions, etc.). For giving to the protest of the civilised form in the democratic states the opposition institute is formed. The extreme form of not conventional political protest is the political terrorism with physical destruction of politicians, power actions of punishment to a mode, etc. Terrorist attack to the USA on September, 11th, 2001, school capture in Beslan became the most tragical at the present stage examples of criminal acts of the international terrorism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION

 

The person - qualification of the individual who has mastered social functions, realised the self-identity and originality as subject of activity and individuality, but as a member of a society and the subject of the world of a policy.

Political psychology

 

I. Inclusion of the person in the policy world assumes mastering and maintenance of its norms by it, images and standards of behaviour, traditions. Process of mastering by the person of requirements of status behaviour, cultural values and reference points which conducts to formation at him properties and the abilities, allowing to adapt in concrete political system and to carry out in it certain roles and functions, is called as political socialisation. The term “political socialisation” has been entered into a political science in 1959 by the American political scientist G.Hajmenom and further was widely adopted.

One of the first approaches to an explanation of process of socialisation of the person was the principle of imitation developed by Gabriel Tardom (1843-1904). The multipurpose approach to socialisation problems was shown by T.Parsons in the work “Social systems”. The classical theory of political socialisation developed by the Chicago scientists under the direction of David Istona, treated it as process of training of the person to special roles which to it are necessary for carrying out in policy sphere. The majority of American scientists supporting these theory (Lawrence Cohen (a sort. 1923), Tolkott Parsons) focused attention to interaction of the person with political system and its institutes, considering it as process of role training of the person; K.Luman and A.Gelen interpret political socialisation as acculturation, that is development by the person of values new to. The scientists working in the tideway of psychoanalysis (Erih Fromm [1900-1980]) give the main attention to research of unconscious motives of political activity, understanding political socialisation as the latent process of politicisation of human feelings and representations. But all of them agree that absence of the properties got by the person in the course of socialisation, not only complicates, but quite often and deprives of its possibility to adapt in political sphere of a society and to use its mechanisms for protection of the interests.

In the politological literature are fixed narrow and wide understanding of political socialisation. In the first case this conscious and purposeful development of political values, belief, skills, etc. In the second is all system of political training - formal and informal, purposeful and unforeseen, - at all stages of life cycle of the person. Such system includes not only especially political, but also not political training which affects political behaviour and political installations of people. Value of political socialisation is defined by that it appears as an essential component of the general socialisation of the individual and a primary factor defining political behaviour of the person.

II. Process of development by the person of political values is continuous and can be limited only by duration of his life. It is two-uniform process: first, development by any person of requirements of the political environment are shown, secondly, by selectivity of such development, fixing them in those or other forms of political behaviour and influence on the power. The constant companions of the person appreciably predetermining its possibilities on mastering and an effective embodiment of political standards, agents of socialisation are. The family, an education system, public and political institutes, church, the mass-media, separate political events concern them (revolutions, reprisals, hunger etc.). All of them compete with each other in aspiration to influence the person in this connection there is a situation состязательных socialisation streams.