Conditions and factors of political stability. Factors affecting political stability

26.09.2019

Characteristics of the hero from the comedy "Minor" D

Pyotr Andreevich Grinev, the main character of the story

The image and characteristics of svidrigailov in the novel crime and punishment dostoevsky composition

The image and characteristics of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin's "The Minor": the description of Mitrofan Prostakov

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 those times 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 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.

The 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 in 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 state's ability to cope with it in a crisis situation.

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 this goal.

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, the implementation of its main functions. Stability, stability of the political system is a state when 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 the 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 such 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-term 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 revolution of 1789 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 activities 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." Her 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 existence 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 protecting the state's own national interests, achieving 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 a 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.

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 backbone and systemic 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 to ensure the political stability, which 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, sequence, 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 ideas of people that determines the orderliness (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.

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.

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 a different 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 outside 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 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 a 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 is 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.

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.

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.

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, staging, articulation and aggregation of interests are able to maintain political order and 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 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 result 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, it 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 under 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 of 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 policy 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 dynamical 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.

The problem of political stability presupposes an analysis of the concept of “political risk”.

In foreign practice, risk is most often interpreted as the likelihood of unforeseen consequences in the implementation of decisions. Accordingly, they talk about the level or degree of risk. Assessment of the degree of political risk based on the analysis of possible scenarios for the development of events allows you to choose the optimal solution that reduces the likelihood of undesirable political events.

Within the framework of the general country risk, non-commercial, political and commercial risks are distinguished.

The term “political risk” has many meanings - from predicting political stability to assessing all non-commercial risks associated with activities in various socio-political environments.

The classification of political risk is carried out on the basis of the separation of events caused either by the actions of government structures in the course of a certain state policy, or by forces outside the control of the government. In accordance with this principle, the American researcher Charles Kennedy proposed dividing political risk into extralegal and legal-governmental (Table 12).

Extra legal risk means any event, the source of which is outside the existing legitimate structures of the country, terrorism, sabotage, military coup, revolution.

Legal-government risk is a direct consequence of the current political process and includes events such as democratic elections leading to a new government and changes in legislation concerning the part of it that deals with trade, labor, joint ventures, monetary policy.

When determining the “political risk index”, attention is paid to the following factors:

The degree of ethnic and religious differences,

Social inequality in the distribution of income,

Degree of political pluralism,

Influence of left-wing radicals,

The role of coercion in maintaining power,

The scale of anti-constitutional actions,

Violations of the legal order (demonstrations, strikes, etc.)

In the classification proposed by American scientists J. de la Torre and D. Nekar, internal and external sources of political and economic risk factors are distinguished (Table 13).

Analysis of internal economic factors makes it possible to compile a general description of the country's economic development and highlight the most vulnerable areas. External economic factors determine the degree of influence of external restrictions on domestic economic policy: a high degree of dependence and a significant amount of external debt increase the risk of interference in investment activities. The problem is that assessments of the internal socio-political factor are largely subjective. Under certain conditions, the external political situation can play the role of a catalyst for political instability in the country.

It should be noted that the analysis of political risk in Russia is somewhat specific.

First, political traditions, imperfection of democratic institutions, and a turning point in historical development have led to a significant role of the personality factor, which should be given additional attention when assessing political risk.

Secondly, a significant factor of uncertainty is the presence of many different types of political-territorial entities with different economic potential, diverse in ethnic composition and based on different historical, political, cultural and religious traditions, regional conflicts have a direct effect on the general political situation, as well as and an indirect impact on the situation in other regions, since the solution of regional problems requires additional subsidies, which leads to an increase in the federal budget deficit, changes in tax legislation, a reduction in spending (and, consequently, an increase in social tension), an increase in the size of public debt, fluctuations in interest rates and the exchange rate, i.e. to the deterioration of the political and investment climate in the country.

In the 90s. the political factor has surpassed all others in its influence on the course of events in Russia. In general, the risk caused by current processes is extremely high and can be characterized as a risk of a transition period: any events in political life can have consequences that are much more destructive than in a stably developing country.

In general theoretical terms, categories such as “immutability” and “stability” are close to the concept of “stability”. They characterize some specific processes taking place in various spheres of social life. So, immutability implies a process in which, within certain time and spatial intervals, the state of the objects under consideration remains basically the same. Stability defines processes in terms of their ability to maintain changes (fluctuations) within specified (known in advance) boundaries, within certain parameters, and also indicates the ability of the system to restore disturbed equilibrium. Both destructive and constructive processes can be stable. Stability does not necessarily mean immutability, although it can include it as a special case. More often than not, resilience means consistency and predictability of change. And this brings this category closer to the concept of “stability”. But it would be wrong to identify these categories.

“Stability” is a more complex category, it includes a comprehensive assessment of the nature of interaction (and possible consequences) of a set of interrelated and mutually influencing elements. In assessing the stability of the political system, it is important to compare the functioning of the system with its real capabilities, which form the “regulatory” and “self-regulatory” potential of the latter. There are several different types of system capabilities:

- extraction (extracting) opportunity, i.e. extraction (mobilization) of material and human resources (finance, support, attraction of talents, etc.);
- controlling, that is, keeping under control the behavior and activities of various social groups and institutions;
- distributive (distributive) ability, i.e. placement and distribution of resources available in society in accordance with actual needs;
- a responsive opportunity, that is, timely consideration of the diverse requirements (challenges) coming from society as a whole or from individual groups;
- communication opportunity, that is, using popular ideas in society, slogans, symbols, the ability to increase the efficiency of interaction of all elements of the system.

A system with significant (large-scale) capabilities can not only maintain stability, but also stimulate the necessary changes. The balance between stability and change is one of the most important indicators of the effectiveness of a political system.

Thus, we can conclude that “stability” as a concept can characterize only those processes and phenomena that are characterized by changes, cause-and-effect patterns of both linear and probabilistic properties. This also applies to political stability. A political system that, in the course of its functioning, violates the framework of identity, that is, comes into conflict with its own nature, loses stability.

An indicator of destabilization is the results of the functioning of the political system that were not expected and unacceptable (undesirable). Assessments of stability (instability) depend both on the availability of relevant information and on the ideological and political positions of participants in political processes, subjects of political life and activity. Therefore, it is of particular importance to develop special procedures (indicators) that make it possible to objectively assess the state of the political system and the degree of its stability.

There are at least three aspects to keep in mind. The first is a systemic one, which includes the patterns and tendencies of the integral, complex development of the political sphere of society, the processes taking place in it at a specific historical time. The second is cognitive, based on the availability of the functioning subject (s) with the necessary timely and sufficiently complete information about events, phenomena and processes developing at different levels of political governance. The third is functional, consisting of the plans and programs of the subjects of the political process and taking into account the possible and real results of political activity.

The content of the functioning of the political system is political activity, which has specific features and essential features. First of all, political activity has a pronounced target social orientation. Each of its subjects (bodies of state power and administration, political parties, movements, blocs, etc.) has its own interests, the implementation of which is the meaning of their participation in political life. Behind each of them are certain social (socio-demographic, national, professional, settlement) groups.

A political system capable of combining different interests, instilling skills for cooperation and consent, coordinating group and corporate political activities can be classified as stable political systems.

Political activity is inextricably linked with the problem of power and the nature of its functioning. Power can be supported by the broad masses and various associations of citizens, and it can also cause rejection of it. Support can be, firstly, the so-called "situational", which is based on the assessment by society of specific decisions made by state bodies, the state's political course, public statements, specific political actions, personal qualities of political leaders. Secondly, it is diffuse, extending primarily to the political regime, which embodies the most characteristic features of the relationship between society and the state. It is a kind of a set of positive assessments and opinions that helps society to accept (or at least tolerate) the actions of power structures as a whole. Diffuse support is characterized by a number of characteristic features, in particular, the duration of the course, close connection with the processes of socialization and the acquisition of political experience by individuals, the focus on assessing the political regime as a whole, and not the officials.

Trust is an important component of diffuse support. It arises due to the satisfaction of different groups of the population with the activities of the authorities, first of all, who make decisions that are adequate to their social expectations.

The political regime is supported at two levels: elite and mass. The main factor of elite support is the degree of socio-economic development, which ultimately determines the amount of resources to be redistributed between various associations of people. The support of the authorities by the masses consists in the acceptance by the majority of the population of values (freedom of speech, pluralism of opinions, independence of the media, etc.), on which a concrete political system of social and political norms (constitutional, legal, moral, etc.) is implicitly or explicitly based. .) that determine the behavior of political leaders and power structures. The main conditions affecting the support of the masses of the existing regime include the long-term and sustainability of democratic transformations in society, the degree of state participation in economic management, social security of the individual, national equality, a constant increase in the standard of living of different groups of the population, and real security of the individual.

Taking into account the dialectics of the objective and the subjective in any political processes involving different groups of the population is of great importance in political activity. A feature of the Russian mentality is the personalization of political life, which means that Russians are not so much oriented towards political programs and parties as towards the personalities of political leaders (state leaders). Hence, the criticism of the latter was sometimes perceived as criticism of the political system as a whole and was persecuted in every possible way, and the strengthening of personal power did not cause active protest.

For an ordinary citizen, both participating in political life and not actively participating in it, the feeling of community with the leader (or his immediate environment) has always been important. It gave a sense of resilience, especially in the face of radical change. The inertia of political sympathies was actively exploited by all political leaders who used their “past merits” in the absence of new ones. We must agree with the position of R. Bendix that “there are important bonds between people that can contribute to the stability of society; the actions of each member are oriented towards the actions of others, and all people attach particular value to the collective entities in which they participate. ”

In assessing the subjective aspects of political activity, it is important to take into account the following aspects:

- political positions and the political role of specific leaders in the current and past socio-political situations;
- the ability to critically analyze social realities and their role in political practice;
- the ability to express and defend national (group) interests;
- value orientations, moral norms, motives and attitudes of political participation.

Freedom of political choice, pressure of group (corporate) interests can, under a certain set of circumstances, have a decisive impact on the political behavior of a leader, the result of which can be a serious destabilizing effect on the entire political system. Its scale and consequences will ultimately be determined by objective prerequisites (conditions). The coincidence of negative subjective and objective prerequisites can lead the political system to a state of extreme instability (crisis) and even self-destruction. Something similar happened in 1991 with the USSR.

A situation of high negative activity of certain political forces is possible, using objective prerequisites (conditions) for their political purposes, but choosing inadequate methods of activity for this. Such influences on the political system (and through it on the whole society) can lead them to short-term success. Ultimately, however, a “pendulum effect” arises, when both public sentiment and the political process begin to drift in the opposite direction, and these forces are defeated. The actions of the Emergency Committee in August 1991 can be cited as an example of a destabilizing effect on the political situation.

Political instability and some disorganization of society in the first half of the 90s are the result, first of all, of a radical government policy aimed at introducing a market economy as the only factor capable of transforming the entire set of complex social relations. In reality, however, they lend themselves to purposeful modification only as a result of the use of organizational and managerial, scientific and technical, financial and economic, spiritual and moral measures. At the same time, the state cannot evade performing a regulatory function not only in the economic sphere, but also in the entire system of social relations.

The use of illegitimate means of struggle for the implementation of corporate interests poses a threat not only to the political system, but to the entire society. The possibility of unleashing a civil war or other large-scale violent actions, both by supporters of the political regime and its opponents, is especially dangerous. The result of such a confrontation may be a political coup, leading to a change of power, to the establishment of a new political regime. History knows many examples of coups that were carried out most often in a crisis of the political system or in totalitarian societies, where the mechanism for changing state leaders was either absent or ineffective. The arrival of a new leader as a result of a coup, as a rule, stabilizes the political system for a certain period of time, but this stabilization is short-lived if the contradictions that gave rise to the political struggle remain unresolved.

The political system cannot be stable if the ruling elite subordinates its main activities 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”. Her 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 endemic to society is not 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 any kind of transformation and the consequences of 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.

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 a 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 and its leaders in public opinion both abroad and within the country.

The political system of society should be not only democratic, providing all citizens with the same opportunities to participate in the political life of society, but also stable. The problem of stability, given the huge number of political upheavals, revolutions, the threat of terrorism, international tension, in modern society comes to one of the first places in terms of importance.

Political stability is the ability of a political organism to preserve itself in conditions that threaten the existence of a social system.

Of course, in countries with different political regimes, for example, authoritarian and democratic, political stability will not be the same. At first glance, the most stable is the authoritarian regime. An eloquent example is Stalinism, which for 20 years (30s - early 50s) was considered in the West as the toughest and at the same time the most stable political system. Here, stability is the absence of structural change in the political system. In an authoritarian system, no political processes lead to radical changes, and if they do occur, then they are subject to a pre-thought out strategy developed by the ruling party or the elite. Indeed, the massive repressions of the 1930s in the USSR, which literally shook the whole world and were able to sweep away any democratic government, did not affect the Soviet system at all: all actions were planned in advance and well organized. The people rallied even more strongly, as the newspapers wrote at that time, "around the Communist Party and Comrade IV Stalin."

In democratic countries, the main factor of stability is the existence of a constitutional order. However, great importance is attached to its development and dynamics. Political scientists define stability according to the formula "order plus continuity": no matter what changes a democratic society undergoes, and it is always characterized by high dynamism, the organization of power should keep its main institutions and properties unchanged for a long period of time.

Distinguish between "minimum" and "democratic" stability. The first of these two terms simply means the absence on the territory of the state of civil wars or other forms of armed conflict. This kind of political stability can be achieved by authoritarian methods. In turn, “democratic” stability is associated with the ability of democratic structures to quickly respond to changing public sentiments. Political stability is viewed, from this point of view, as a function of democracy, which includes, among other things, the participation of citizens in governing the state through the institutions of civil society.

If it is very simple to understand stable power, as is done under authoritarian regimes, then it can be achieved by allowing one element of the system to suppress all the others. Democracy, on the contrary, excludes a situation where any political institution (party, group, etc.) gains an absolute advantage over its opponents. Participants in the political process in a democracy must have a force sufficient to protect their interests, but not sufficient to monopolize power.

When comparing the two types of political regime, it turned out that the most typical cases of liquidation of democratic regimes, as opposed to authoritarian ones, were associated not with internal conflicts, but with the invasion of foreign states or coups with the participation of the military.

History bears witness to a known asymmetry in instability. Numerous cases of overthrow of authoritarian regimes by authoritarian ones, while democratic ones - by authoritarian ones have been recorded. But there are no convincing examples of one democratic regime eliminating another. From this we can conclude: the fall of democracies is always associated with violent actions of those groups or political forces that do not recognize the legitimacy of this form of government.

In a democratic society, political stability directly depends on the support of the population for a given political system and its fundamental values. American scientist D. Siring, investigating this issue, pointed out the following features of the stability of a democratic society:

The higher the level of political participation, the stronger the public's support for the political “rules of the game”;

The main social forces in favor of strengthening the political order are (in ascending order): public opinion in general, public activists, candidates for elective offices, members of parliament.

In the 90s, our country underwent serious political changes associated with the transition from socialism to capitalism, the collapse of the one-party system, the destruction of the stable social structure of society. This means that Russian society has moved from one type of political stability (authoritarian) to another (democratic). It, as it turned out later, entered a long phase of political instability associated with frequent changes in government.

During the 90s, under one President (Boris N. Yeltsin), more than 10 governments were replaced. However, the reshuffling of government offices does not necessarily lead to a change in the political regime. An example is Italy, where governments often changed over a longer period of time - during the 70s and 90s, nevertheless, the country was considered politically stable.

Some experts, in particular the German political scientist E. Zimmermann, understand political stability as the functioning of one government over a long period of time, implying, accordingly, its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities. In this case, government stability appears as the ability of political administrators to govern more effectively as their term in office increases. He identifies several patterns associated with achieving this kind of stability:

The term of office of the government is inversely proportional to the number of parties in parliament and is directly proportional to the number of seats occupied by pro-government parties;

A one-party government is more likely to stay in power than a coalition government;

The presence of factions in the government reduces its chances of staying in power;

The stronger the fragmentation of forces in parliament (including the opposition), the more likely the inviolability of the composition of the government is;

The more seats in parliament opposition and anti-system forces have, the less the likelihood of a long-term government existence.

Even a cursory analysis of the political events of the 90s confirms the truth of the above. Indeed, the government of E. Gaidar, adhering to radical economic reforms, existed as long as the pro-government parties had strong positions in parliament. This happened in the wake of the fall of the authority of the Communist Party in the early 90s. Later, when the reforms reached a dead end, and the material situation of the people deteriorated sharply, the Communist Party began to acquire more and more political weight. The demand for social rather than economic reform has now come to the fore. The number of political forces supporting the President and the government has decreased in parliament. The president was forced to make more and more compromises and concessions to the communists, changing the composition of the government (following the change in political mood in the State Duma).

The political experience of Russia in the 90s allows us to conclude that a one-party or a politically homogeneous government is more likely to stay in power than a coalition government. Thus, the government of V.S.Chernomyrdin held out longer than the government of E.M. Primakov. Another conclusion: the stronger the fragmentation of forces in parliament, the more likely the inviolability of the composition of the government. The President of Russia spent a lot of time and effort on splitting the State Duma and keeping the previous composition of the government, bargaining, sometimes openly for money, sometimes promises of political concessions, with various factions and enticing them to his side.

The strategy of compromises and concessions makes one think that the political stability of society, and not only of Russia, is a balance (balance) of political forces. The latter are expressed by the actions of the various political actors discussed above. The idea of balance suggests that stability requires balance. If the power of one political force is balanced by the equal power of another or other agents of the political process, then aggressive actions are unlikely.

The idea of balance of power is dynamic in nature. She speaks of the stability of those parts or elements that are mobile and changeable. Stability between rigidly fixed elements is expressed by other concepts, for example, "monopoly of the ruling party", "order through repression and suppression", "like-mindedness in society", etc.

Under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, any manifestations of instability, in particular free-thinking, political threats, citizen discontent, deep divisions in society, i.e. cultural, ideological and socio-economic conflicts, are suppressed in a harsh manner. However, political discontent that was not demonstrated or not expressed gradually accumulates, hides underground and breaks out with a vengeance and aggression. The experience of the tsarist autocracy and Bolshevik rule, which represented authoritarian types of regime, testifies to this.

In a democracy, any germs of instability meet with a different reaction, which usually boils down to a search for compromises and solutions that satisfy the majority of the political forces involved in the process. The instability of a democratic regime based on the support of the popular masses increases when that regime fails to live up to the aspirations and hopes of the people. In an authoritarian regime, this dependence is not observed. In a democratic society, judging by its name (power of the people), in principle, the population should have very high expectations about their participation in politics and making decisions that are most important for the fate of society. But if politicians ignore such participation or deceive the hopes of the people, discontent grows in society and the level of political instability increases.

Political frustration of the population usually results in declining trust in political leaders and institutions of power. It is known that in transforming societies, including Russia, there is a growing mass distrust of citizens towards political parties and civil institutions in general. More than 2/3 of those polled in December 1998 did not trust practically any institution. Two significant trends are emerging: general political apathy and withdrawal from political life, on the one hand, and increased opportunities for political parties to attract citizens to their side by non-democratic methods, on the other.

The decline in people's trust in political authorities is sometimes referred to by scientists as the distancing of civil society from political elites. The weakness of political institutions and the political apathy of the population are far from harmless things, as it might seem at first glance. Collectively, they can pave the way for authoritarianism or foreign intervention. An authoritarian personality who has seized power from the hands of a weakened democracy will certainly hide behind slogans to strengthen democracy by military means. It will be armed with quite correct political formulations that were not used by the previous authorities, such as that democracy should be sharp-toothed, it should be able to defend itself with arms in hand, etc.

Among the factors of political instability, scientists sometimes attribute the insufficient capabilities of the political elite, as well as the predominance of “narrow” and personified parties. Both signs were present on the Russian political scene in the 1990s. The weakness of the political elite was manifested in the fact that not she, but the environment of the President of the country, often referred to as the "family", appointed the highest officials in the state and reshuffled the government. Many well-known parties in Russia were personified because the departure from the political scene of their leader could actually lead to their disintegration. When the Liberal Democratic Party did not register for the State Duma elections in October 1999, it was transformed into Zhirinovsky's party. The new name more accurately expressed the essence of this political association: it was the party of one person.

Among the factors of political instability, scientists also include: the weakening of the mechanisms of socio-political control, the degree of trade and financial dependence on external sources, the number of cancellations or suspensions of the constitution, the number of changes in the structure of executive power, the percentage of cabinet members from among the military, the number of soldiers per 10,000 population, percentage of military spending in the budget, annual income per capita, budget-to-GNP ratio, unemployment and inflation, budget deficit, state of government loans, percentage of workers involved in conflicts with the administrations of their enterprises, rate of homicides and suicides, number of demonstrations, uprisings, political strikes, assassination attempts, ethnic conflicts, territorial disputes, the spread of militant nationalism and religious fundamentalism, uncontrolled migration on a mass scale, imperfect political communication network, lack of consensus within the elite about regarding the procedures and norms of the functioning of the government.

The risk of political violence, which was discussed at the very beginning of the paragraph when defining stability, is increased by such circumstances as administrative corruption, feelings of political apathy and frustration in society, difficulties in the initial phase of industrialization, the habit of using coercion from the government, government crises, high ethno-linguistic fragmentation , significant inequality in land use. To them must be added the threat of political terrorism, which, however, has a twofold effect on the government: on the one hand, it shakes it, on the other, it rallies, forcing it to consolidate and oppose force with force. This happened in Russia after a series of terrorist attacks in Moscow and other cities in the fall of 1999.

SECTION 4. FORMATION OF A HUMAN PERSONALITY

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. A significant contribution to the research of 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 a goal for a certain period. It can form and function as a result of crises, conflicts, general civil uplift 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 for expressing the interests of society and are able to ensure its progress during 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 does 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. The unity of power and society is emerging, which is necessary for carrying out 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 under 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 dynamics of welfare growth is maintained. An important factor of 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.

Incomplete definition ↓

Conditions and factors of political stability. Factors affecting political stability

Read also