Cheat Sheet: Political Stability. The level of socio-political stability in Russia is declining

26.09.2019

Over eternal rest. Levitan's philosophy. Levitan. «Over eternal rest Analysis of the content of Levitan's painting over eternal rest

Aphorisms and catchphrases from the comedy "Woe from Wit" (Griboyedov) 15 catchphrases from Woe from Wit

Existential literature

Characteristics of Eugene Onegin Description of characters Eugene Onegin

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political stability"

SAMARA 2006

Political stability is an integral part of the general concept of state stability. Synonyms for "stability" - "constancy", "immutability", "stability". “Political stability is viewed as the psychological ability of the population to maintain calm behavior, regardless of external or internal unfavorable conditions. Political instability develops only in those cases when the mass of people is psychologically prepared to react aggressively to any socio-economic events ”(AI Yuriev). An increase in tension in problem areas of society leads to a violation of psychological and political stability. That is, the presence in society and the escalation of destabilizing factors. The level of political stability in a society can be measured. An indicator of political stability is the ratio of the level of social / political aggressiveness of the population and the level of social / political subordination of the masses. However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, albeit minimal, level of stability is absolutely necessary for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can vary significantly and vary - from balancing on the brink of a large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability of political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only the levels or degree of stability - instability, but also different types of political stability. Researchers distinguish in this regard, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to changes and the impact of the environment, and, secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment. An example of the latter can be some political regimes that functioned in pre-Soviet and Soviet Russia. Russian experience convinces us that an authoritarian, harasmic leader is capable of stabilizing society along the path of breaking through to new frontiers of social and economic progress. Whichever of the strong, reformist-minded political leaders we take - Peter I, Alexander II, early Stalin - everywhere we see grandiose socio-economic results, the speed of which cannot be compared with the time frame in which such transformations were committed in the West. However, as soon as the energy of the upper classes weakened for some reason, the development of society was slowed down, stabilization

Political stability in Russian literature is understood as:

The system of connections between different political subjects, characterized by a certain integrity and efficiency of the functioning of the system itself.

Orderly processes in politics, the contradictions and conflicts of which are regulated by political institutions.

The agreement of the main social and political forces on the goals and methods of social development.

The state of the political life of society, manifested in the stable functioning of all political institutions available in society, associated with the preservation and improvement of structures, with their qualitative certainty.

A set of political processes that ensure the existence and development of political subjects in the political system.

You should also refer to the most popular approaches to defining political stability in Western political science:

a). First of all, stability is understood as the absence in society of a real threat of illegitimate violence or the presence of the state's capabilities that allow - in a crisis situation - to cope with it.

Stability is also viewed as a function of democracy, which includes, among other things, the participation of citizens in governing the state through the institutions of civil society.

b). Stability is also interpreted as the functioning of one government over a certain long period of time, implying, accordingly, its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities.

v). The presence of a constitutional order can also be considered a determining factor of stability. S. Huntington, in particular, defines stability according to the formula “order plus continuity”, assuming that the model of the organization of power retains its essential characteristics leading to the specified goal for a long period of time.

G). Stability as the absence of structural changes in the political system or as the ability to manage them.In other words, in a stable system, either the political process does not lead to radical changes, or, if such changes are still observed, they are subordinated to a strategy developed in advance by the ruling elite.

Thus, as N.A. Pavlov emphasizes, one of the most significant problems of the functioning of the political system is ensuring its stability. This means that the system retains its institutions, roles and values under the changing conditions of the social environment, and it performs its main functions. Stability and stability of the political system is a state where any deviations in the actions of political actors are corrected by the implementation of established, legitimate norms.

Political stability should also be understood as an integral part of the overall state of state stability. This interpretation of the concept gives a new dimension to the emerging concept of "sustainable development" of society. Political stability is ensured not only by the action of political factors proper, by the balance of the elements of the political system, by the stability of political relations. An indispensable condition for political stability is stable relations between the peoples living on the territory of the country and the state.

Stability is correlated with situational and operational parameters of political dynamics, and stability - with its strategic, historical dimensions. Stability in the country can be achieved through tactical and temporary agreement between the main political forces, but the strategic stability of political life may still be very far away, as it was in France in February 1848, then the workers and bourgeois, who originally formed the Provisional Government, already in June of the same year they clashed in the streets of Paris in barricade battles. Organic stability, inertia, in contrast to mere stability, are associated not simply with the easily disturbed balance of two or more social forces, their more or less unstable truce, but with the action of a certain integrating formula, into which the political culture of the whole society is cast for a relatively long time. So, political stability expresses a state of political dynamics in which a temporary equilibrium (or balance) of forces of the main political factors is achieved, after which subsequent destabilization is possible, a violation of this balance. The processes of establishing temporary stability in the absence of strategic stability are very characteristic of many political regimes in Asia and Africa; instability and instability are the opposite states of stability and stability. The extreme form of instability of political dynamics is a systemic crisis in all spheres of public life, the long and growing nature of which sometimes leads to revolutions and the collapse of the old political system. Classic examples of such political cataclysms are the 1789 revolution in France, the events of 1917 in Russia, or degradation, anomie, and then the collapse of statehood in Somalia, torn apart by warring clans during the civil war. A. de Tocqueville notes two significant reasons that gave rise to the instability of the political dynamics of France, which led the country to the Great Revolution in 1789: first, a radical change in the balance of power between the two leading classes, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, when the latter, even before the revolution, seizes bureaucratic control over management of French society, and secondly, the decline of the old political institutions that maintained the old balance of social forces. He adds to this that the administrative reforms of 1787 (provincial assemblies, etc.), which drastically changed the institutional structure of France, increased its political instability, and thus the reforms brought the revolution closer.

The political system cannot be stable if the ruling elite subordinates its main activity and the innovations initiated by it only to its own interests and ignores the interests of the majority. In this case, "it can only hold on to force, deception, arbitrariness, cruelty and repression." Its subjective activity comes into conflict with the objective needs and nature of society, which leads to the accumulation of social discontent, leads to political tension and conflicts.

Conflicts in the functioning of the political system play an ambiguous role. Their occurrence is an indicator of a certain distress or an aggravated contradiction. But conflicts by themselves cannot significantly affect the stability of a political system if the latter has mechanisms for their institutionalization, localization or resolution. To say that irreconcilable conflicts are an endemic feature of society does not mean to say that society is characterized by constant instability. "

These words of R. Bendix are fair, although with great reservations they can be attributed to interethnic conflicts that are difficult to transform, whatever, and the consequences, which are the most destructive. This is largely due to the fact that the causes that cause them are, as a rule, complex. Among them are “existing or newly emerging social differentiation along ethnic boundaries, unequal access to power and resources, legal and cultural discrimination, propaganda of xenophobia and negative stereotypes”. The interethnic rivalry that arises on this basis can acquire harsh forms and continue for years (or even decades), shaking the foundations of the political system of society.

Thus, the presence of effective mechanisms for the rapid detection, prevention and resolution of conflicts remains a necessary condition for the effective functioning of the political system and an indicator of its stability.

The political system, being open, experiences not only internal, but also external influences that can cause its destabilization under certain conditions. The most important indicator of the stability of a political system is its ability to neutralize negative external influences.

The main forms of implementation of the latter are subversive activities carried out by special services and organizations, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, threat of force, etc. An adequate and timely response to such external influences allows to protect the state's own national interests, to achieve favorable conditions for their implementation ... The negative impact from the outside on the political system may not be purposeful, but be the result of common planetary difficulties and unresolved problems.

At the same time, external influences can also have a positive character for the political system, if the foreign policy pursued by the state does not contradict the interests of the world community. The peoples are interested in the consistent implementation of democratization, humanization and demilitarization of world politics, in the development of measures to ensure the survival of mankind in the conditions of the crisis of modern society and a sharp deterioration in the quality of natural factors. Taking these global needs into account in political practice evokes the approval and support of other countries of the world community, which strengthens the position and authority of the state, its leaders in public opinion, both abroad and within the country.

The functioning of the political system, facing outward, adequate to the current needs of the development of the world community, makes it more effective and gives it an additional impetus to stability, and hence the security of the country, with which the latter is closely connected.

Thus, political stability is ensured under the condition of the unity of the Constitution and the laws of the Russian Federation, the Fundamentals of Legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and, at the same time, with a clear delineation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the federal bodies of state power and the bodies of power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This is a key problem in today's multinational Russia.

Bibliography.

1. Zhirikov A.A. Political stability of the Russian state. M., 1999.

2. Makarychev A.S. Stability and instability in a democracy: Methodological approaches and assessments. // Policy. - 1998. - No. 1.

3. Pavlov N. A. National security. Ethno-demographic factors // National interests. - 1998. - No. 1.

4. Queen G.I. Russia: in search of a formula for national revival // Socio-political journal. - 1994. - No. 1-2.

The problem of the political stability of the regime is undoubtedly one of the fundamental in political science. S. Huntington, who made a significant contribution to the development of this problem, wrote in one of the first and most famous of his books: "The most essential political characteristic of various societies is connected not with the form of their government, but with the degree of controllability." More than twenty years later, he almost literally repeated this idea in the pages of another work: "The difference between order and anarchy is more fundamental than the difference between democracy and dictatorship."

One of the most important (though not the only) factors to which it is customary to pay attention is socio-economic development. The imperative of development acts at one of the stages of social evolution as a condition for the self-preservation of power. If the authorities, the regime, for some reason, do not realize this and become a brake on the imminent socio-economic transformations, then the result of such "stubbornness" is most often their elimination from the political arena. Elimination, we add, is associated with very painful consequences for society. The development imperative is therefore absolute and unavoidable. Only the authorities that take this imperative into account in their activities in every possible way can be considered promising. Based on this understanding, a regime that can ensure the integration of society along the path of effective socio-economic development can be considered stable.

Modernization is almost never accompanied by the stabilization of existing political structures. The weakening of legitimacy, the authorities' feverish search for additional social and international support - these are the phenomena that are well known to observers of the modern Russian situation and which are much more typical for any transition period. “Modernity,” wrote Huntington, “needs stability, but modernization ( modernization) creates instability. " In Political Order in Changing Societies, Huntington summarized his observations about political stability and instability in three formulas. In his opinion, in the conditions of modernizing authoritarianism, ensuring stability should be associated with limiting the role of political participation of the masses, which will undermine the reliability of institutions.

However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, albeit minimal, level of stability is absolutely necessary for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can vary significantly and vary - from balancing on the brink of a large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability of political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only the levels or degree of stability-instability, but also different types of political stability. Researchers distinguish in this regard, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to changes and the impact of the environment, and secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment.

The legitimacy of power

The problem of the legitimacy of political power, posed by no means in the twentieth century, but especially emphasized by the works of M. Weber, continues to cause a lot of controversy among sociologists, philosophers and political scientists. In these disputes, we will be interested in only one aspect: whether legitimacy is a necessary and sufficient condition for maintaining political stability. Basically, researchers agree that legitimacy, if it exists, undoubtedly contributes to stabilization.

M. Weber proceeded from the assumption (although this interpretation of Weber continues to be disputed) that legitimacy is a factor that allows stabilizing relations of political domination in society. By the system of domination, Weber meant a social order where orders are ordered and orders are carried out. According to Weber, the execution of orders is achieved not only and even not so much by the use of force.

More importantly, any government acts within the framework of certain socially developed norms and rules of community and relies on these norms in its activities. If such norms are recognized by the public majority and perceived as values, one can be sure that state power has sufficiently strong foundations. Or, in other words, it has legitimacy.

Legitimacy, therefore, means the coincidence of social norms and values, recognition or legitimacy (in a non-legal sense) of power. For Weber, legitimacy acts as a guarantor of the stability of the structures, procedures, decisions of officials in society, "regardless of the specific content of their actions." According to Weber, legitimacy can be of three fundamental types - rational, traditional, and charismatic. Accordingly, the power acquires its powers on the basis of three different ways - rationally developed rules of human society, the traditions prevailing in society and the charisma of the leader. Since legitimacy acts for Weber as an internal basis and meaning of political domination, then on its basis, the German scientist believed, three main types of political domination can also be distinguished.

Legitimate power is thus self-contradictory and potentially unstable. The presence of this contradiction, noticed by political analysis, contributed to the emergence and development of the concept of "effectiveness" of power in political science, and also again attracted the attention of researchers to the problem of stabilizing a regime that does not have political and ideological legitimacy.

According to another position put forward by researchers of specific political systems and processes, legitimacy is essential, but not necessary for the stabilization of the regime. In the practice of regimes, periods can be found, and sometimes quite long, up to two decades, when the regime has existed without change, although the legality and justice of its power is not recognized by the majority of the population. In particular, the well-known South African researcher S. Greenberg wrote about this, who showed that the apartheid regime due to the use of military-economic resources turned out to be much more stable than expected, despite the fact that in quantitative terms it was supported by no more than one fifth of the population.

Thus, the problem of legitimacy, for all its importance, by no means exhausts the content of the stability of the regime. Let us turn, therefore, to the next most important component of political stability.

Power efficiency

The effectiveness of power is a parameter that is often viewed by political scientists as complementary or interchangeable with legitimacy and capable of stabilizing the system even in conditions of its insufficient legitimacy.

The concept of efficiency as such was introduced into circulation by S. Lipset in his work Political Man. Social Foundations of Politics, published in 1960. According to Lipset, the stability of power is determined not by one (legitimacy), but by two parameters - the legitimacy and economic efficiency of power. He believed that the very legitimacy of the system of power can be achieved in two ways: either through continuity, its perception of former, once established norms; either at the expense of efficiency, i.e. acquiring the ability of the system itself, even abandoning traditional norms, to solve urgent, primarily socio-economic problems of social development. In the first case, Lipset undoubtedly had in mind the traditional type of legitimacy identified by Weber, based on a patriarchal or class system of social ties. This is a historical situation in which the imperative of economic development has not yet manifested itself as a priority and urgent one. Therefore, the authorities may be concerned about other, "their own" problems (intrigue, elimination of recalcitrant, objectively unnecessary external wars).

Another thing is charismatic legitimacy, designed to demonstrate the prophetic qualities of a leader and his ability to lead the process of a radical transformation of the economic and value foundations of society, relying in this on the affective belief of the masses in his extraordinary qualities. This kind of legitimacy is closely related to economic efficiency. Firstly, it will not be able to exist for a sufficiently long time without significant economic shifts, and secondly, the very nature and depth of these shifts are subordinated to the influence of the charismatic. Take the Stalinist transformations. The authority of the "leader" in the Bolshevik and popular masses arose and strengthened due to the existing vacuum of power and Stalin's ability, taking advantage of this vacuum, to gradually subjugate the organs of state coercion and the machine of party power. However, later, one of the factors of this authority was the economic leap made by the country from a pre-industrial to an industrial economy. This leap, the replicated figures of achievements, the incessant propaganda campaign in a society with a traditional political culture served both as a source of mass enthusiasm and labor heroism, and strengthening the authority of the "leader of all times and peoples." The economic efficiency of the regime thus served as one of the undoubted sources of its legitimacy. To a certain extent, this dynamic is characteristic of any political system. Lipset wrote, for example, that "the success of the American Republic in establishing post-revolutionary democratic legitimacy could be linked to the power of the achievement values that existed in society." Efficiency, as it becomes clear, is a source of legitimacy and, at the same time, a bridge that facilitates the replacement of one type of legitimate power by another.

Thus, we can conclude that the political stability of the government consists of two main components - legitimacy, or the recognition of its authority by wide social strata and efficiency, which means the ability of the government to use the resources at its disposal (material and spiritual-psychological) in order to solve the urgent and urgent tasks. The effectiveness of the government is not limited to its ability to control the situation in society, but also contributes, along with this, to the solution of socio-economic problems. The social conflict is thus under the control of the authorities because they will be able to involve the main strata of society in the process of reforms and development. Adequate political leadership, skillful use and transformation of existing political institutions expand the importance of effective power, helping to reduce the potential for social violence (manifestations of this violence can range from unauthorized strikes and demonstrations to armed action by insurgents and terrorists) and ensuring the integration of society.

Socio-political stability is one of the necessary conditions for the successful development of any society; in a transitional society, the importance of stability increases many times over.

List of used literature and sources

1. L.N. Alisova, Z.T. Golenkov. Political Sociology. Political support as a condition for stability. M., 2006.

2. Averyanov, Yu.I. Political Science: Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1993.

3. See: Krasnov BI Political system // Socio-political journal. M., 1995.

4. Tishkov VA Post-Soviet Russia as a national state: problems and prospects // At the turn of the century. SPb, 1996.

5. Tsygankov A. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. M., 1995.

6.http: //www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Polit/Cigank/11.php

20. Political stability.

Political stability is a stable state of society that allows it to function effectively and develop under conditions of external and internal influences, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the process of social change.

The term "political stability" appeared in English and American political science, where it was used to analyze changes in the political system, search for optimal mechanisms for its functioning.

The state of political stability cannot be understood as something frozen, unchanging, given once and for all. Stability is viewed as the result of a constant process of renewal, which rests on a set of unstable equilibria between system-forming and system-changing processes within the system itself.

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relations dominates, battling the commonality and continuity of goals, values and means of their implementation. At the same time, stability is the ability of subjects of socio-economic and political life to resist internal and external actions that disorganize the system and neutralize them. In this understanding, stability is perceived as the most important life support mechanism for the development of the social system.

The main thing in political stability is the provision of a policy that manifests itself in legitimacy, certainty, and the effectiveness of the activities of power structures, in the constancy of the norms of values of political culture, and the familiarity of the types of behavior of the stability of political relations. It is known that the greatest successes were achieved by those societies that were traditionally guided by the values of order. On the contrary, the absolutization of the value of change in society led to the fact that the resolution of problems and conflicts was achieved at a high price. In order for development and orderliness to coexist, consistency, consistency, gradual change and, at the same time, a realistic program that can connect goals with means - resources and conditions - are necessary.

It is the choice of the goals of political changes that correspond to the means, possibilities, and perceptions of people that determines the ordering (norm) of development. Transformations divorced from their real economic, social, cultural and psychological prerequisites, no matter how desirable they may seem to their initiators (elite, ruling party, opposition, etc.) cannot be perceived as “norm”, “order” by the majority of society. The reaction to unprepared changes, to disordered development turns out to be overwhelmingly destructive.

which would be accepted by all participants in the political process as order. The formation of the political order takes place on the basis of the existence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

As for the ways of regulating the dynamics of social interests of society, they can be confrontational (conflicting) and consensus. The first type proceeds from the possibility of overcoming or even sometimes eliminating a certain group of interests. In this case, the only force of political integration, the achievement of order is considered to be violence. It considers as an effective method of solving emerging problems. The consensus type of regulation of social relations proceeds from the recognition of different social interests and the need for their agreement on the fundamental problems of development. The basis for this consensus is the general principles and values shared by all participants in political action. The most dangerous thing for the political order is the loss of confidence in political and moral values and ideals on the part of the people.

Political stability and political order are achieved, as a rule, in two ways: either by dictatorship or by the broad development of democracy. Stability achieved through violence, suppression, repression is historically short-lived, has an illusory character, since it is achieved “from above” without the participation of the masses and opposition. Stability on the basis of democracy, a broad social base, and a developed civil society is another matter.

Stability develops from the attitude of the population to the existing political power, the ability of the political regime to take into account the interests of various groups and coordinate them, the position and condition of the elite itself, the nature of relations within society itself.

Distinguish between absolute, static and dynamic political stability. Absolute (complete) stability of political systems is an abstraction that has no reality. In all likelihood, even “dead” systems devoid of internal dynamics cannot have such stability, since it presupposes not only complete immobility of the political system itself and its elements, but also isolation from any external influences. If absolute stability is possible with a high level of well-being, tremendous strength of traditions, leveling inequality, and a Marked system of power, then its destabilization under the influence of both external factors and the growth of internal crisis phenomena will only be a matter of time.

(militarization, expansion, aggression, etc.) and domestic politics. But, as a rule, if these attempts at modernization do not coincide in time, do not take into account the objective progressive course of development, do not rely on a broad social base of interests, do not take into account geopolitical opportunities and the reaction of the world community, then the political system is destroyed and the “closed” society is transformed into a more mobile social education capable of adapting to changing conditions.

The current state of the social environment is characterized by a new dynamic level of political stability. It was developed by “open” societies that have learned the mechanism of renewal, and regard socio-economic and political changes within the existing socio-political environment as a stabilizing factor.

They are able to perceive and assimilate internal and external impulses that transform them, organically include in the democratic process mechanisms not only to prevent, but also to use conflicts to maintain the stability of the political system.

Dynamic systems have the necessary degree of stability, stability, ensuring their self-preservation and at the same time not being an insurmountable obstacle to change. They are possible only in a democracy. Under these conditions) the state of stability is always relative, there is a regime of constant self-correction of the political system. Summarizing a huge amount of factual material, S. Lipset concluded that eco-comic development and the competitive nature of the political topic are compatible.

In a society with many problems of economic, social and political development, democracy complicates the solution of problems of political stability. In conditions of economic inequality, the absence of civil society, acute conflicts, and the large number of marginalized strata, democracy can turn out to be a very risky form of development. The democratic type of development in liberal, pluralistic systems has other possibilities.

One of the main prerequisites for political stability can be considered economic stability and an increase in prosperity. The close relationship between economic efficiency and political stability is obvious: the socio-economic factor affects the place and distribution of political power in society and determines the political order. It is known that economic crises, a decline in production, and a deterioration in the standard of living of the population often led to the destruction of the political system. The experience of changes in Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe showed that the strength of dictatorial regimes ultimately depended on the success of their economic system. Economic weakness, inefficiency inevitably leads to political collapse. Quite high rates of economic growth and the absence of pronounced imbalances in the distribution of income are also important.

recognized as universal, regardless of class, ethnic, confessional

and other differences. A political nation is a product of a political system as a specific type of social production.

The balance of interests ensures the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system, the necessary degree of approval and acceptance of democratic rules and norms of political behavior. But not only the readiness of citizens to defend various goals and contribute to the process of adaptation of the political system to new situations and changes, but also the presence of social trust, tolerance (tolerance), political conscientiousness of cooperation, respect for the law and loyalty to political institutions.

and committees can reduce the quantitative and qualitative overload3 of the political system to a minimum. Reduction of social space for direct, direct forms of pressure (participation in the activities of the executive branch, multi-stage, articulation and aggregation of interests are able to maintain political order, political stability.

The main subjects of internal political stability are the state and the political cells of society. Moreover, depending on their activity, they can also act as objects of the political process. There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization. Mobilization stability arises in social structures where development

initiated "from above", the very same society is mobilized to achieve the goal for a certain period. It can form and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, general civil uprising, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the interests of the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take responsibility for expressing the interests of society and are capable of ensuring a breakthrough in society during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the state of war and the combat effectiveness of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society, capable of separating the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena) in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems do not feel the need for change as long as their status allows them to maintain social positions. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a universal time6 or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

society. There is a unity of power and society, which is necessary for “the conduct of deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensures the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly due to the legitimization of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of managerial functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of a gradual strengthening of the positions of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts are legalized here and are resolved by civilization in other ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in a prosperous country in comparison with others is cultivated, dynamics is maintained growth of well-being.

An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system is open, there is a possibility of balancing between the growth of the extractive, regulatory function and the response to public attitudes towards public policy. The political system, without pretending to be the main subject of social change, is called upon to maintain existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

The discontent of the masses with the policy of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis and destabilizes society as a whole and its subsystems.

It is the contradiction between the government and society that is the equal cause of the instability of society.

The factors of instability include the struggle for power between competing groups of the ruling elite, the creation of a threat to the integrity and very existence of the state, personification of power, the predominance of corporate interests of the ruling elite in state policy, the presence of interethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of political power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinaire in politics, etc.

Instability can manifest itself in such forms as a change in the political regime, a change of government, an armed struggle against the ruling regime, the activation of opposition forces, etc. A change of government and peaceful forms of activating the opposition lead to a change in political leaders, a change in the balance of power within the political elite, but in general the political the regime can remain stable, as can political ideas, structures and ways of implementing policies. Clearly expressed political instability is associated with the emergence of an immediate threat to the political regime, when the failures of its policies are combined with the disintegration of state power and the decline of the regime's legitimacy, and the opposition gets the opportunity to overthrow the existing government.

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be viewed as the problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification due to internal and external stimuli.

Among the methods used by the political elite to ensure political stability, political order, the most common are the following: socio-political maneuvering, the content of which is to weaken the opposition of the “disadvantaged” part of society (the range of maneuvering methods is quite wide - from separate deals, temporary political blocs to the proclamation of populist slogans that can divert public attention); political manipulation - the massive influence of the media in order to form public opinion of the desired direction; introduced opposition forces into the political system and their gradual adaptation and integration; the use of force and some other methods.

This is a stable state of the political system, which allows it to function effectively and develop under the influence of the external and internal environment, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change. Significant contribution to S.p. contributed by S. Lipset and S. Huntington. According to Lipset, S. p. determined by the legitimacy and effectiveness of power. The absence of both variables leads to the instability of the political system, while the presence of only one of them leads to relative stability / instability. Huntington associates political stability with the level of political institutionalization. The higher the level of political institutionalization, the more stable the system. There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization. Mobilization stability arises in social structures, where development is initiated "from above", while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to achieve the goal for a certain period of time. It can form and function as a result of crises, conflicts, general civil uprising or through open violence, coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the interests of the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take responsibility to express the interests of society and are able to ensure its progress in this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization S.p. can serve the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the state of war and the combat effectiveness of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society, capable of separating the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems do not feel the need for change as long as the status quo allows it to maintain social positions. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a universal impulse or open compulsion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived. Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of smb. specific social and political actors arises in a society when development begins "from below" by all structures of civil society. Nobody stimulates this development on purpose, it exists in every subsystem of society. There is a unity of power and society, necessary for deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensuring the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly due to the legitimization of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of managerial functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of a gradual strengthening of the positions of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts are legalized here and are resolved by civilizational methods, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in a prosperous country in comparison with others is cultivated, the growth dynamics is maintained welfare. An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system, without surrendering to the role of the main subject of social changes, is called upon to maintain the existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value. The factors of instability include the struggle for power between competing groups of the ruling elite, the creation of a holistic threat to the very existence of states, the personification of power, the predominance of corporate interests of the dominant elite in state policy, the presence of interethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of democratic power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinaire politics, etc. Instability can manifest itself in such forms as a change in the political regime, a change of government, an armed struggle against the ruling regime, the activation of opposition forces, etc.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Conditions and factors of political stability

political stability social system

The term "political stability" appeared in English and American political science, where it was used to analyze changes in the political system, search for optimal mechanisms for its functioning.

The degree of political order is also influenced by the dynamics of social interests of different levels of community and the ways of ensuring their interaction. It is important here not only to take into account the specifics, autonomy of interests, multiplicity of orientation of activities, but also to understand their compatibility. In society, there should be zones of harmonization of interests and positions, uniform rules of behavior that would be accepted by all participants in the political process as order. The formation of the political order takes place on the basis of the existence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

Distinguish between absolute, static and dynamic political stability.

Absolute (complete) stability of political systems is an abstraction that has no reality. In all likelihood, even “dead” systems devoid of internal dynamics cannot have such stability, since it presupposes not only complete immobility of the political system itself and its elements, but also isolation from any external influences. If absolute stability is possible with a high level of well-being, tremendous strength of traditions, leveling inequality, and a Marked system of power, then its destabilization under the influence of both external factors and the growth of internal crisis phenomena will only be a matter of time.

Static stability is characterized by the creation and preservation of immobility, the constancy of socio-economic and political structures, connections, relations. It rests on ideas about the inviolability of social foundations, a slower pace of development, the need to preserve the conservative in the dominant ideology, and create adequate stereotypes of political consciousness and behavior. However, the viability of a political system of this degree of stability is extremely limited. This state can be the result of rigid resistance to both external and internal changes (closed-type systems). Sometimes political systems of static stability try to improve their standing by, say, conducting “active” foreign (militarization, expansion, aggression, etc.) and domestic policies. But, as a rule, if these attempts at modernization do not coincide in time, do not take into account the objective progressive course of development, do not rely on a broad social base of interests, do not take into account geopolitical opportunities and the reaction of the world community, then the political system is destroyed and the “closed” society is transformed into a more mobile one. social education capable of adapting to changing conditions.

The condition for stability is the presence in society of a balance (consensus) of interests of various groups, which shows the objectivity of the existence of the sphere of potential consent of a political nation. A political nation is a community that lives in a single political and legal space, the laws and norms of which are recognized as universal, regardless of class, ethnic, confessional and other differences. A political nation is a product of a political system as a specific type of social production.

Political stability is based on a rigid separation of powers, the presence of checks and balances in the functioning of various branches of government. A large flow of "filters" - interest groups, pressure groups, parties, parliamentary commissions and committees can reduce the quantitative and qualitative overload of the political system to a minimum. Reduction of social space for direct, direct forms of pressure (participation in the activities of the executive branch, multi-stage, articulation and aggregation of interests are able to maintain political order, political stability.

Mobilization stability arises in social structures, where development is initiated “from above,” while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to achieve the goal for a certain period. It can form and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, general civil uprising, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the interests of the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take responsibility for expressing the interests of society and are capable of ensuring a breakthrough in society during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the state of war and the combat effectiveness of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society, capable of separating the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena) in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems do not feel the need for change as long as their status allows them to maintain social positions. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a universal time6 or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of any specific social and political subjects, arises in a society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody stimulates this development on purpose, it exists in every subsystem of society. There is a unity of power and society, which is necessary for “the conduct of deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensures the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly due to the legitimization of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of managerial functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of a gradual strengthening of the positions of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts are legalized here and are resolved by civilization in other ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in a prosperous country in comparison with others is cultivated, dynamics is maintained growth of well-being.

The discontent of the masses with the policy of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis and destabilizes society as a whole and its subsystems.

It is the contradiction between the government and society that is the equal cause of the instability of society.

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be viewed as the problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification due to internal and external stimuli.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Cheat Sheet: Political Stability. The level of socio-political stability in Russia is declining

Read also

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents