Лекции по "Политологии"

In too time the political mode is a way of functioning of political system of a society which defines character of life in the country and reflects political freedom level, and also the relation of authorities to legal bases of their validity. Signs of a political mode are:

- cтепень participations of the people in mechanisms of formation of the political power, and also ways of such formation;

- A parity of the rights and freedom of the person with the rights and behaviour of the state;

- гарантированность the rights and personal freedoms;

- The characteristic of real mechanisms of realisation of the power in a society;

- Position of mass media, publicity degree in a society and a transparency of activity of machinery of state;

- A place and a role of not state structures in political system;

- Type of political behaviour of the big groups of people;

- The account of interests of minority at acceptance of political decisions;

- Domination of certain methods at power realisation;

- Degree of leadership of the law in all spheres of public life;

- Political both legal position and a role in a society of power structures of the state (army, police, the agencies of state security);

- A measure of political pluralism in a society;

- Existence of real mechanisms of attraction to political and legal responsibility of officials, including most the higher.

V. Irrespective of, what mode of type develops in this or that concrete country or what political policy is offered to the country its ruling elite, all activity of imperious bodies, finally, submits to the purposes of preservation of stability of political usages supervised by them. According to many leading theorists, stability, is the most important characteristic not only a political mode, but also a social order as a whole. In the political world exist stable, средне stable and extremely astable modes.

Stability of a political mode represents the difficult phenomenon including such parametres, as preservation of system of board, the statement of a civil order, preservation of legitimacy and maintenance of reliability of management. Criteria of stability can be: in power, its support on the parties presented in a legislature, multi-party system degree, dissociation of forces in parliament etc. it is possible to carry term of a finding of the government To stability factors: presence of a constitutional order supported by the authorities and legitimacy of a mode; effective realisation of the power; flexible use of power means of compulsion; observance of public traditions; carrying out of the thought over and effective governmental strategy; steady maintenance and relations of the power with opposition and level of tolerance of the population to non-standard ideas; performance by the government of the basic functions.

Contrary to stability, instability accompanies processes of qualitative reforming, basic transformations in a society and the power more often. Instability factors concern: cultural and political splits in a society; an inattention to needs of citizens from the state; an intense competition of the parties adhering to opposite ideological positions; the offer to a society of unusual ideas and forms of the organisation of an everyday life. The American scientist D.Sandros has come to a conclusion that instability is directly proportional to action of such factors, as urbanization and overpopulation growth; industrial development which destroys natural social communications; easing of mechanisms of sociopolitical control; trading and financial dependence of the country on external sources. At the same time it inversely proportional to level of legitimacy of a mode; development of political institutes; To increase of social and economic mobility, rates of economic development; to perfection of a network of political communications; to a consensus in elite and to other similar factors.

VI. On the basis of the characteristic of ruling modes distinguish totalitarian, authoritative and democratic types of political systems. The political system of modern Russia endures a difficult condition of a transition period. All basic elements of this system - statehood, political parties and party system, basic elements of a civil society - still continue to be formed. It is not up to the end cleared, what will be mutual relations of becoming political system with a society. Now both under the form, and on character the situation develops in advantage of liberally-democratic political system. However continue to exist and самопроявляться and other tendencies - social democratic and authoritative. If to speak about the administrative device Russia all balanced several years ago between development in the form of original federation and confederative tendencies, now shows obvious tendency to centralisation. If to speak about party system, most likely, in Russia there will be a multi-party system, instead of two-party to what present efforts of the authorities are directed. Some features are inherent in political system of modern Russia: domination in an institutional subsystem of enforcement authorities to the detriment of functions of legislative institutes; low relative density of political parties in public life, their weak influence on the power, a society; as a whole insufficient ability of reaction of system on the impulses going both from objects, and from subjects властвования; imbalance of prerogatives and social responsibility of the authorities of the central, regional and local levels. It out of time and inadequately reacts to existing and again arising interests of those or others страт the Russian society.

Deep transformations of material and spiritual life of modern mankind have led to formation of new dynamical type of the political organisation of a society. It is characterised by more free relations between parts and elements of the political system, the developed public control of political life and regularly operating legal, political and cultural mechanisms, mastering with which can give to political system of the Russian Federation the big viability, stability and durability. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITATIVE AND TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

 

The state is I.

Louis XIV

 

I. Now in the majority of the countries of the world there are authoritative political usages. In the general view the shape of system of the rigid political board constantly using compulsory and power methods for regulation of the basic social processes was fixed to authoritarianism. At such style властвования the opposition is excluded not only from decision-making sphere, but also from political life as a whole. An authoritative mode - it is state-political system, in which the political power is carried out by the concrete person (a class, party, elite group) at the minimum participation of the people. The main characteristic of the given mode authoritarianism as makes a method властвования and managements, and also as a version of public relations. Being guided at state policy carrying out only by narrow interests of a ruling layer, authoritarianism uses in relations with the population mainly methods патронирования and control.

The main way of preservation of an authoritative way of board are backroom deals, payoff, private arrangement and other technologies of shadow board. Other source of board of this kind considers use by the authorities of certain features of mass consciousness, mentality of citizens, religious and cultural traditions which in aggregate testify to enough steady civil passivity of the population. Now the most essential preconditions for occurrence of authoritative modes keep transitive societies. As Adam Pshevorsky (marks a sort. 1940), authoritative temptations in societies of this kind are almost deep-rooted. Comprehension of daily difficulties causes a temptation in many political forces “to make all rectilinearly, one throw, to stop squabble, to replace a policy with administration, anarchy - discipline, to do all rationally”.

Among set of authoritative usages it is possible to allocate their following basic types: party, corporate, military, national and personal authority modes. Feature of party modes consists in realisation of the exclusive power by any party or a political group not necessarily formally representing institute of party. Military-bureaucratic modes, as a rule, result from revolutions, plots, putsches in the form of military dictatorship, but in the further political development the increasing role belongs any to civil professionals. Forms of military board - from dictatorship of one general to junta. Such political usages differ suppression of a considerable part political and a civil freedom, a wide circulation of corruption and internal instability. Models of national authoritarianism result from domination in elite grouping national or an ethnic group. As example Post-Soviet republics can serve in the Central Asia. One-party mobilisation authoritative modes of this type especially often resulted from independence finding by the colonial people. In the politological literature they have given life to such concept, as postcolonial authoritarianism. Corporate authoritarianism personifies the power of the bureaucratic, oligarchical or shadow groupings combining the power and the property and on this basis supervising decision-making process. The state becomes the tool of forces which use possibilities of its bodies for protection of narrowly group interests. As an example of a corporate mode board Antoniu ди can serve Salazara in Portugal since 1932 till 1968 personal authority Modes personalise all political relations in the opinion of public opinion. Rigid character of board in a combination to certain traditions of noncritical perception of the power quite often gives economic benefit, leads to activization of the population and growth of legitimacy of a mode. However such system of the power quite often provokes practical terror from opposition. In classification of political modes of Juan Lintsa (a sort. 1926) султанизм it is considered as the limiting form автократии. In султанистском a mode the personal intertwines with public, the strong tendency to the family dynastic power and continuity is looked through, there are no distinctions between public service and service to the governor, successes of officials depend on personal relations with the despot, there is no a little rational ideology. The sultan is absolutely free in the actions.

Characteristic features of authoritarianism as systems властвования are:

- Limitlessness of the power, its independence of a society; concentration of the power in hands of the political leader (the monarch, the tyrant) or certain persons (military junta, oligarchical group etc.); the power can correct by means of laws, but it accepts them under own discretion;

- Presence at the state of only key levers of influence on public life; refusal of the power of total control over a society, non-interference or the limited intervention to not political spheres and, first of all, in economy; the power prosecutes subjects mainly maintenance of own safety, a public order, defence, foreign policy though it can influence and strategy of economic development, spend active enough social policy, without destroying thus mechanisms of market self-regulation;

- Restriction and a strict regulation of the political rights and political behaviour both separate citizens, and the political organisations; a non-admission of real political opposition and a competition; at автократии existence of the limited number of parties, trade unions and other organisations, but only under condition of their submission to control to the authorities is possible;

- The support on the force allowing in case of need at own discretion to use of it and to force citizens to obedience; absence of the huge retaliatory device, aspiration not to resort to mass reprisals;

- Formation of political elite by co-optation, appointments from above, instead of competitive electoral struggle;

- The permission to citizens of all of that is not forbidden by the state;

- Presence of elements of democracy in some authoritative modes (elections, parliamentary struggle, etc.)

II. Totalitarian political system. The term "totalitarianism" (from an armour. totalis - whole, full or totalitas - completeness, integrity) the J for the first time has been formulated. Джентиле in beginning ХХ of century in Italy. In 20th years this term is entered by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) into political use which in the theory “органистического the states” gave to totalitarianism positive sense as to an embodiment of power of the official power. The idea of the omnipotent and all-consuming power in a more comprehensive sense taken as a principle to the given theory was developed by theorists of fascism, met in political compositions of "the left communists” (the Lion Davydovich Trotsky). However serious attempts of conceptual interpretation of this political phenomenon have been undertaken already after the Second World War and were based on the analysis of a Hitlerite mode in Germany and Stalin - in the USSR: Charles Popper (1902-1994) considered a totalitarianism phenomenon in the work “the Open society and its enemies”; In 1951 there was a book of Hanny Arendt (1906-1975) “a totalitarianism Origin”; after four years Charles Fridrih (1901-1984) and Zbignev Bzhezinsky (a sort. 1928) Totalitarian dictatorship and democracy ”have published work“.

In a political science there were some approaches to totalitarianism illumination. A number of scientists have refused to carry totalitarianism to scientific categories, seeing in it only a metaphor for the dictatorship characteristic. Many scientists, believing that концепт totalitarianism nevertheless theoretically describes real political usages, nevertheless, saw in it only a version of authoritative political system or one of the general patrimonial properties of the government which constantly tries to expand the powers at the expense of a society, imposing it "services" in a management and management. As believes M.Simon, use of the term "totalitarianism" in general needs in the event that be not to adjusted only to it all versions of political dictatorships.

In view of the limited applicability of theories of totalitarianism it is represented to more fruitful to treat it as mainly standard concept finding большее or a smaller practical embodiment in ideology, political movement and real political practice. The general distinctive signs of totalitarianism is the aspiration to general organisation of a society and complete control of the person the power, to radical transformation of all public system according to revolutionary in character the social utopia which is not leaving places for individual freedom and social contradictions. Totalitarianism is the political mode aspiring to an establishment of absolute (total) control over various aspects of life of each person and all society as a whole. Certain signs are inherent in this mode:

- The state aspires to global domination over all spheres of public life, to the comprehensive power;

- The society is almost completely aloof from the political power;

- In political consciousness of people representation about "unity", power and people "merge" is formed;

- Exclusive state control over economy, mass media, culture, religion, private life;

- An absolute regulation of public relations on the basis of a principle “that is directly authorised the law” is permitted only;

- The government is formed in the bureaucratic way with use closed from control of a society of channels;

- The violence, compulsion, terror becomes a dominating management method;

- Domination of one party, actual merging of its professional device with the state, an interdiction of in opposition adjusted forces;

- The rights and freedom of the person and the citizen have declarative, formal character, there are no weighty guarantees of their realisation;

- As an economic basis the large property - state, monopolistically, communal acts;

- Presence of one official ideology, pluralism it is actually eliminated;

- Government centralisation in hands of the dictator and its environment;

- The government is carried out at the discretion of the leader, subordinated to its arbitrariness.

III. Depending on the dominating ideology influencing the maintenance of activity of a totalitarian mode, them usually subdivide into fascism, national socialism and communism, and also theocratic totalitarianism. Historically the first form of totalitarianism considers communism of the Soviet type, the beginning to which the military-communistic system in general generated in 1918 as she assumed full elimination of a private property and, hence, any autonomy of the person, the absolute power over her the states has put. And still the characteristic of a socialism of the Soviet type as totalitarianism одностороння also does not open all maintenance and the policy purposes in this type of a society. Despite mainly totalitarian forms of the political organisation, the humane purposes were inherent in socialist system also: general formation, availability to each person of achievements of a science and art, social security of people etc. Since 60th years ХХ the centuries, many western political scientists have ceased to qualify a political system of the USSR as totalitarian, preferring to describe as a certain version of authoritarianism.

The second version of totalitarian political systems - fascism. For the first time the fascist mode has been established in 1922 in Italy. The Italian fascism gravitated not so much to radical building of a new society, how many to revival of the Italian nation and greatness of Roman empire, an establishment of a firm state order. The fascism applied for restoration or clarification of "national soul”, maintenance of collective identity on cultural or ethnic soil, liquidation of mass criminality. Benito Mussolini confidently considered totalitarianism as a XX-th century innovation, confirming: party which operates totalitarian - the new fact in the history for which analogies and comparisons are inappropriate.

The third version of totalitarianism - national socialism. As the real political and social order it has arisen in Germany in 1933 National socialism was related and close to fascism. Sharply "Leader" (1044) Konrad Hejden has expressed a totalitarianism phenomenon in it natsional-sotsialistskom (nazi) variant in Germany (1901-1966) in the book. Its judgement is possible, possibly to carry to all первоначалам totalitarian usages: “From fragments of the died off classes there is a new class of intellectuals, and at the head of it the most ruthless march, those who has nothing to lose, - the armed bohemia, to whom war - mother native, and civil war - fatherland”.

As the fourth example of theocratic totalitarianism can serve муллократия in Iran after Khomeini's revolution, a mode of Talibs in Afghanistan, etc.

IV. Now totalitarian modes do not play the world scene some an essential role, the area of their distribution was essentially reduced. H.Lints in the typology of political modes has fixed as special posttotalitarian system властвования. It carries the Soviet mode To posttotalitarian usages in the USSR after Joseph Vissarionovicha Stalin's death (1879-1953). The main characteristics of posttotalitarianism are well described by Milovanom Dzhilasom: easing of police services or their neutralisation by means of army; the permission of crisis of management by creation of the centre of the power already in the form of collective, instead of a personal management; revision of a role of party in a society; gradual process of liberalisation of political system in order to avoid opened or latent by revolution opposition.

Political scientists allocate three conditions of a posttotalitarian mode:

- Early posttotalitarianism is closest to totalitarian board, however differs from it occurrence of terminators on the power of the leader (the USSR at Nikita Sergeeviche Khruschev (1953-1964);

- Late posttotalitarianism more and more tolerantly concerns mode criticism (Czechoslovakia 1977-1989);

- At the mature posttotalitarian power all characteristics of former political system will considerably be transformed, invariable there is only supervising role of party (Hungary 1982-1988).

Characteristic signs of posttotalitarian modes (absence of political pluralism, occurrence of elements of social and economic pluralism, preservation of official ideology at comparative reduction of degree идеологизированности the societies, some easing of mobilisation of citizens through existing institutes, but at maintenance of necessary level of conformism in relation to a mode, бюрократизация a nomenclature management) act as the precondition of their liberalisation and the subsequent democratisation.

The history like would take out the verdict to totalitarianism. But whether the world from relapses of the similar organisation of the power is insured? As social practice shows, the system of the total power is not capable to adapt flexibly to intensive dynamics of modern societies with difficult scale of various interests. It - internally closed system constructed on a principle гомеостазиса (preservations of internal balance, without looking at influences from the outside), moving under self-isolation laws. The totalitarian type of political systems could appear only on narrow time space which was given by history to some countries. It does not mean, nevertheless, that it does not have chances of revival at this or that local level and in ХХI century. Definitive destruction of a phantom of totalitarianism is integrally connected not only with presence of democratic institutes and involving of the countries and the people in new information relations. Enormous value growth of their social responsibility and the initiative have also understanding people of values of democracy, comprehension by them as citizens of the honour and advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theme 7. Democracy.

 

1. Concept of democracy.

2. Modern democracy.

3. Democracy lessons.

The employment purpose: to analyse all forms of democracy and to stop on lacks and democracy lessons.

Democracy in the modern world is a set of the various political systems united only by the name and the most general principles. At the same time two opposite and complementary approaches which actually form a problem field of any democracies are known. One of them is connected with realisation by the people as a whole all completeness of the power, and thereby - in management of each person and group. The second is connected with a measure of participation of any person and the group, making the people, in self-management by political system as a whole. In the first case democracy appears democracy with strong accent on it всенародности, in other - democracy with a stress on authoritativeness and controllability of people (roles) forming these system and groups (institutes), that is on self-management.

Democracy in most cases consider as the political design, called to embody in the power set of supreme values (freedom, equality, justice etc.) Which express its social sense and mission. Treatments of democracy concern this group as democracy systems that quite corresponds to its etymology (греч. demos - the people, cratos - the power). Most capaciously and short essence of such understanding of democracy was expressed by A.Linkoln, having designated it as “the people power, the power for the people, the power by means of the people”. Supporters such (in political science it is called still as valuable) the approach concern also ZH.-ZH.Russo's understanding democracy as the form of expression of absolute power of the sovereign people adherents which, being political whole, denies value of the individual rights of the person and assumes exclusively direct forms of national will. Марксисты, leaning against idea of alienation of the rights of the individual in favour of collective, do an emphasis on class interests of proletariat which, in their opinion, reflect requirements of all workers and cause construction of "socialist democracy”. For liberal thought the main condition of formation of a social building of democracy are the values reflecting a priority not of collective (people), and the person. T.Gobbs, J. Lock, T.Jefferson and others have based on interpretation of democracy idea of the individual possessing private world, the primary right to freedom and security of the rights. On participation in the power they extended equality to all people without an exception. The state at such understanding of democracy was considered as neutral institute with function of protection of the individual rights and freedom.