As can be seen, in the first case we are talking, first of all, about those elements that contribute to the formation of political governance, in the second - about models of access to the most important management positions, characteristics of the subject and strategies of struggle for access to management.
(1) specific ways and means of implementing normative provisions in the practice of state institutions;
(2) a specific type of government;
(4) a special mechanism and method of managing society;
(5) ways of political participation of citizens and groups in the life of society, etc.
All these signs are certainly important for characterizing political regime and define it from a certain angle. And since it has many such sides, there are a large number of definitions.
It seems that when determining a political regime, one should proceed from the central and essential factor of politics itself - the question of state power. To be extremely concise, a political regime can be defined as a system of forms and methods of exercising political power.
This definition reveals the concept of a political regime from its essence. From the point of view of its place and role in the political system of society, a political regime is a certain way of functioning of the political system. It is the political regime that sets goals and implements the political system, within the framework of which and together with which it exists, being its main element and matrix. This is the main difference between the concepts “ politic system" and "political regime", which, therefore, should not be identified in principle. Although, as can be seen from the above definition, there is an immanent relationship between them, so that a change in the political regime sooner or later leads to a change in the type of political system.
The political regime is carried out through a system of various kinds political relations in society. First of all, these are power relations between the state and society, the state and the citizen. The nature of the political regime is determined by the role that political institutions play in the political life of society, how constitutional norms are observed, the degree of respect for human rights and freedoms, what opportunities are provided to the opposition and individual citizens to express their opinions and to access sources of information.
Thus, the political regime itself is a complex system consisting of a number of elements. So, J.-L. Kermonn identified the following among such elements:
(1) the principle of legitimacy. Legitimacy (from Latin - legal, lawful) is the compliance of political power with the basic values of the majority of society and its aspirations, it is loyalty and support for the authorities on the part of citizens, it is, finally, the conviction of citizens that, despite all the mistakes and shortcomings, existing political institutions are the best;
(2) structure of institutions. The effectiveness of a political regime ultimately depends on the organization of state power, on the nature of the interaction between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. In democratic societies, their interaction creates a system of checks and balances that prevents that political regime from becoming a totalitarian or authoritarian political regime;
(3) party system. The essence of political regimes is largely determined by the party system - the totality of political parties in society and the relationships between them. Political parties arise to express the diverse interests of social classes and segments of the population. Different political regimes are largely characterized by the conditions they create for the activities of political parties, as well as whether there are different political parties and political pluralism in them at all;
(4) the form and role of the state. The state is the most important element political regime. Its significance and influence are determined by the fact that it is in the hands of the state that the main power and political management society, as well as the fact that the state has a monopoly on violence.
We also note an attempt to bring together different approaches to defining a political regime, undertaken by the authors of the textbook “Political Science”. They highlight the following indicators:
1) institutional way of interaction between government and citizen (compliance with constitutional norms, including the level of respect for fundamental rights and human freedoms; compliance of the activities of administrative bodies with the state legal framework; the importance of the official legal sphere in the overall scope of government actions);
2) the degree of political participation of the population and its inclusion in the adoption process government decisions, reflecting social representation, popular control and expression of will;
3) the level of possibility of free competition between the ruling and opposition groups in the formation of government bodies;
4) the role of open violence and coercion in public administration.
17.2. Types of political regimes
The first typology of political regimes was created within the framework of ancient philosophy. Its most famous representatives, Plato and Aristotle, although they did not use the term “political regime,” were already talking about the types and forms of power and the state.
In the mature period of his work, Plato distinguished two types of government - correct, based on justice, law and carried out for the sake of the common good, and the opposite - incorrect, carried out for personal gain. According to Plato, perfect shape The state and at the same time the form of government is the aristocracy, in which power belongs to philosophers, sages, knowledgeable people and, moreover, highly virtuous ones. It is they who can know what justice is and govern with knowledge of the matter, and not the people, orators or “demagogues”. In this sense, Plato laid the foundations for the model of a political regime that was called “meritocracy.” But at the same time, he laid the foundations for another model - totalitarianism, since in Plato’s ideal state everyone lives according to a general routine established by the rulers. In this state there is not only social unity and uniformity, but also ideological and even psychological unity, where all citizens are equally expected to rejoice or mourn on the same occasion. When deciding what comes first - the individual or the state, Plato takes the position of superiority of the state over the individual.
The wrong type of state is represented in Plato by several negative (wrong) forms (in order of worsening): timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny. They are based on material selfish interest, not on knowledge. All of them are interconnected and successively replace each other in their development and change. But the worst form of government is tyranny, in which there is one-man rule carried out in the interests of one person.
A similar division of states and forms of government into two types exists in Aristotle (384-322 BC). The correct type of state and government is represented by such forms as monarchy, polity and aristocracy. Here government is exercised for the common good. Wrong forms of government are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. The best form of government, according to Aristotle, is polity - the power of the middle class (the average among the propertied population), the worst is tyranny (rule of one for the sake of private interest).
Further development of the concepts of political regimes and systems is associated with the theories of N. Machiavelli, G. Trotius, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, B. Spinoza, C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau, I. Kant, G. Hegel and other thinkers.
M.V.Ilyin, A.Yu.MelvillePOWER
Polis, 1997, 6, 13
ILYIN Mikhail Vasilievich, MELVILLE Andrey Yuryevich - professor of the Department of Political Science at MGIMO (U) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
The publication of the “Departments” section is carried out with the assistance of the Institute “ Open Society”, as part of its “Higher Education” program.
From the editor. We continue to introduce readers to the textbook “Basic Categories of Political Science,” which is prepared by a team of specialists from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University). The sections “Introduction” and “Politics and Political Science” (1996, No. 4), as well as “Democracy and Democratization” (1996, No. 5) have already been published on the pages of our magazine. “Polis” plans to publish other sections of the textbook.
Lecture abstracts:
Power as key moment politicians. Different understandings of power. Power as a metaphor for everyday speech and how political concept. The connection of power with power, influence, strength, wealth, rights, powers, norms, etc. Types of power. The essence of political power. Resources, functions and effectiveness of government. Directive, functional and communicative aspects of power. Coercion and voluntariness, violence and non-violence in politics. Methods and styles of power.
The origin of power and its sources. Power and “the powers that be.” Centers of power and power authority. Empowering authority and using authority as authority. Subjects of political power and political institutions. “Pyramid” of power, the role of hierarchical relationships. Functional “separation of powers”. Multi-power and anarchy. “Devaluation” and “revaluation” of power.
Crises of power and ways to overcome them. Trust in authorities and legitimacy of the political regime. Institutional foundations of modern delegitimation and legitimation of the regime.
Power and freedom. The connection between freedom and power and the level of development of political personality and political culture.
Questions on the topic
1. How is power different from dominance, influence, might and force?
2. Can power be non-political? If yes, then what political power different from all other types?
3. What are the limits of power? How is it related to coercion and violence?
4. What do the expressions “have power”, “gain power”, “lose power” imply? Can power “shift”?
5. How can power be lost or gained? Does it disappear? Decreasing? Is it increasing?
6. What does it mean to “be power” or “become power”? What is required for this? Who or what might be the power?
7. What is meant by the expressions “realize power”, “show power”, “exercise power”? What and from whom is required for power to be “realized”?
8. How does power relate to freedom? Does greater power and more freedom, or, on the contrary, its limitation?
Preparatory reading for the lecture
Vyatr E. Sociology of political relations. M., 1979, p. 157-199.
Koval B.I., Ilyin M.V. Power versus politics. - “Polis”, 1991, No. 5.
Ball T. Power. - “Polis”, 1993, No. 5.
Power is a highly emotionally charged phenomenon that is admired by some and terrified by others. For some, power fascinates like a magnet that unconsciously attracts and attracts. To be convinced of this, it is enough, for example, to leaf through “The Prince” or “The History of Florence” by the outstanding Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). Others see in it the receptacle of all the basest things. And this has been the case since antiquity. One of Plato’s dialogues says: “No human soul, which will withstand the temptation of power.” In the same spirit, in 1887, the British politician Lord Acton uttered a phrase that became popular: “Power is prone to corruption, and absolute power is absolutely corrupt.” This is where her quotation usually ends, although the continuation of the thought is no less important: “Great people are almost always bad people... Among the things that lead to the degradation and demoralization of a person, power is the most constant and active force.”
Power has not only terrified and delighted people for a long time. It has always been one of the central categories of political science. Many prominent researchers believe that power is an indispensable companion of politics, that it represents its main problem, in a sense, its main nerve. Power turns out to be that wonderful means that allows politics to emerge as a special aspect of human activity associated with purposeful organization. Power binds our obligations, all those actions that can and should constitute a single process of organization in order to achieve mutually agreed goals, and therefore acts as the organizing principle of politics, or more precisely, as will be shown below, its main means, a kind of “symbolic intermediary” ( T. Parsons), ensuring the consistency of our actions.
“So “politics” seems to mean the desire to participate in power or to influence the distribution of power, whether between states, whether within a state between the groups of people that it includes.”
M.Weber (1)
“Politics is essentially power: the ability to achieve desired result by any means."
E. Heywood (2)
However, even if not everyone agrees with the understanding of politics as the “pursuit of power,” it is almost universally accepted that power is at the center of politics, that it is a kind of “key” to understanding almost all other aspects of politics.
Power as a metaphor and as a concept
The word power is widely used in political discourse, and in everyday language. M. Weber is right when he reminds that, depending on the situation, they talk about the power of the father over the children, the power of the money bag, the power of legal, spiritual, economic, etc. But first of all, power means the highest state power. So, for example, in French power, le pouvoir, is not only power as such, but also a synonym for central government; in English, the power is not only power, but also a power, a state with all its might; in German die Gewalt is not only power, but also power, as well as violence. Finally, in our native language power often turns out to be synonymous with superiors, and the word power denotes the authorities of the state. It is curious that in the Czech language the word vlast means homeland, fatherland, and political power itself is expressed by the word moc, as well as power. As for the authorities, they are called urady, and the powers that be, the government, are called vlada.
Both in political and in everyday speech, the word power does not have one established meaning. It is significant that almost all political thinkers of the past, speaking about power, do not give it clear definitions. The same Machiavelli, completely fascinated by the game of power over a person, in discussions about it was inclined to resort to vivid epithets and comparisons rather than to look for more or less strict definitions. And only at the present stage of development of political science do various interpretations of the very concept of power appear. Thus, for some theorists, power is a special kind of influence, for others it is the ability to achieve certain goals, for others it is the ability to use certain means, for others it is a special relationship between the governed and the manager, etc.
Different interpretations of power are associated not only with the polysemy of the word power itself, but also with different ways its use. The fact is that its use, on the one hand, allows one to form metaphors for everyday speech (to be at the mercy of waves, the power of music, to overcome the power of poverty, to escape from the power of love spells, etc.), and on the other hand, to express specifically political concept or even fix a fairly strict scientific category. We have to admit that approximate and careless handling of the word power and words close to it, according to some meanings - power, influence, force, domination - create many problems both for political practice and for political sciences.
“I think it is a rather sad reflection of the current state of political science that our terminology does not distinguish between such keywords, as power, might, force, authority and, finally, violence. All of them relate to certain, but at the same time different phenomena and would hardly exist if they were not such. ... The use of them as synonyms not only indicates a certain deafness to linguistic meaning, which is serious enough in itself, but also leads to a kind of blindness to the realities to which they correspond.”
H. Arendt (3)
At the same time, with all the confusion that a jumble of meanings and meanings brings into our thinking, and with it into political behavior, one cannot deny the importance and significance of the essential proximity, although not identity, of those phenomena that are denoted by the words power, might, force, influence, wealth, norms, rights, powers, etc. Power and strength are united with power by special qualities - the ability to do something, accomplish something. Influence, wealth, norms (and even skills, customs) are a kind of power, but exercised differently and in different relationships. Finally, rights, powers, authority are certain integral additions (and in this sense, extensions) of power, its instruments, conditions for implementation, etc.
Diversity and essence of power
It is important to distinguish between types of power. Although by its nature power is a purely political phenomenon, as we will try to show below, it is possible to distinguish between political and non-political power. There is a difference between politics for the other, which arises in non-political spheres (economics, culture, society), and politics for oneself, which forms its own sphere. Accordingly, power that is political in nature may turn out to be non-political (economic, cultural, societal, etc.), outside the boundaries of politics itself. To distinguish such “imperfect”, as Aristotle would say, power from completely “perfect” power, the concept of political power is often used. This concept, despite its apparent tautology, is not without meaning and refers to power, which has its own content, the self-sufficient meaning of power as such.
How justified is it to recognize power as essentially political, but also capable of being non-political? - Only insofar as it is possible to detect this or that policy in the non-political aspects of a single human reality. So, if we are able to isolate economic policy, then it will certainly have its own means of universal communication, making it possible and effective to fulfill the obligations assumed by the participants in economic relations. And if so, then we can talk about special economic power, and therefore about the authority, powers and rights of economic entities.
To determine the essence of power as such, one could limit ourselves to pointing out that it acts as a means of universal communication in the implementation of goal achievement, a symbolic intermediary that ensures the fulfillment of mutual obligations. However, such an indication is clearly insufficient, since a variety of phenomena can act as such a means (with a naive-naturalistic view of politics) - from brute force to highly refined diplomatic tricks. This leads to a completely natural variety of interpretations of the phenomenon of power itself.
“...A general definition of power should include the following elements:
At least two partners of power relations, and these partners can be both individuals and groups of individuals;
The order of the one exercising power, that is, the expression of his will in relation to the one over whom he exercises power, accompanied by the threat of sanctions in case of disobedience to the will thus expressed;
The subordination of the one over whom power is exercised to the one who exercises it, that is, the subordination of the will of the one exercising power expressed in the order;
Social norms establishing that the one who gives orders has the right to do so, and the one whom these orders concern is obliged to obey the orders of the one exercising power.”
E.Vyatr (4, p. 161)
Some identify power with those resources that are used to bind and mediate goal-directed actions and commitments (delayed actions) in politics. In this case, power appears as a kind of power, strength, will, charm, or simply as some inexplicable, miraculous gift, called the mysterious Greek word charisma (kharisma - divine grace, gift from kharis - charm, pleasure). These may also be opportunities generated by aspects of human existence other than politics, but which can be converted into power. This wealth is from the economic sphere, influence is from the societal sphere, norms and patterns are from the cultural sphere. People have such power as a resource (power and possession are words with the same root, as well as german word die Gewalt), lose it, transfer it, receive it and divide it.
“The power of a person (taken in general terms) is his present means of achieving some future apparent good in the future. Man's power, considered universally, consists in his present ability to seize obvious future goods.”
T. Hobbes (5, p.116)
For others, the connection between power and stable interpersonal relationships is clearer and closer. These authors associate power with submission, command, or dependence, depersonalized by the will of circumstances, and even with interdependence. What is interdependence and, in general, the relationship of two or more variables if not a function? Power as a function can no longer be assigned by one person alone. Moreover, the function begins to rise above people, making them a kind of hostages of structural relations predetermined by the traditions and skills of political interaction of these people. Power, as it were, is alienated from the person and becomes a “mask” - a role and that storyline that have to be played out.
Finally, there are politicians and scientists for whom power appears as the opening of new opportunities, potentials - in a word, as a means of political creativity. This kind of creativity occurs through problem solving, allowing people to find new configurations for old (and new) resources and functions. Such creativity is unthinkable without discussion and agreement on alternatives. Contentful and positive communication is built over resources and functions, generating new meanings, operational linking of goals and means, and most importantly, putting forward the effectiveness of goal achievement as a criterion and basis for power.
All these different interpretations of the phenomenon of power are not mutually exclusive - they capture different and completely real aspects of power. In modern political science literature, at least three such aspects (or dimensions) are often identified.
Firstly, the directive aspect. In accordance with it, power is understood as domination that ensures the implementation of an order or directive. It is in this sense that they talk about the powers that be, i.e. about the highest for of this company(community) authority that issues binding orders. Power understood in this way is what makes it possible to carry out one’s will by introducing various cash resources and resources of various kinds into the matter. Obviously, this is a very real and extremely important characteristic of power.
Secondly, the functional aspect, i.e. understanding of power as the ability and ability to practically implement a function public administration. Functional aspect power is due to the fact that power in general, and political power in particular, represents a certain relationship between certain subjects, political actors (whether individual citizens or organization, party or state, etc.).
Finally, thirdly, the communicative aspect of power, associated with the fact that power is somehow realized through communication, through a certain language understandable to both parties public relations authorities.
All three of the above aspects of power are very real, but still not entirely equivalent. The directive aspect, i.e. power as coercion to fulfill the will of the orderer is, as a rule, considered fundamental. This is essentially what the definitions of power common in political science say:
“Power means any ability to carry out within given social relations own will even in the face of resistance, regardless of what the basis for this possibility is.”
M.Weber (1)
“Power is the likelihood that an actor in a social interaction will be able to carry out his or her own will in the face of resistance.”
M.Weber (1)
“In its most general form, the power of one person over another can be defined as follows: Ivan has power over Peter whenever and only when, according to the norms of the society to which Ivan and Peter belong, Ivan has the right to order Peter, and Peter is obliged to obey orders Ivana... Power is the ability to command in conditions where the one who is ordered is obliged to obey. When we talk about commanding and obeying, we mean certain type influence on the behavior of other individuals other than what is usually called “influence.”
E.Vyatr (4, p.158-159)
Power and coercion
As these and many other definitions of power show, it is in one way or another associated with coercion, imposing one’s will, and command. Such a focus on the directive aspect of power is quite understandable: it is convenient for constructing a very simple models power relations, since it allows us to present them in a fairly unclouded, almost primitive form. In this case, however, there is a danger of being carried away not only by simple, but also by clearly narrowed interpretations of power. Often such interpretations reduce power to domination or even identify it with the main means (resource) of this domination - coercive violence.
In contrast, those political scientists who prioritize a complex communicative interpretation of power tend to sharply distinguish the use of force and coercive violence from power itself. This is, for example, the point of view of T. Ball (“Polis”, No. 5, 1993), who considers all violence to be only pseudo-power; by resorting to violence, the pseudo-powerful subject actually admits that he is unable either to exercise independent leadership or to achieve his goals in conditions of constructive cooperation with others.
“Power is a “way” (way), but not always necessarily a “means” (means), with the help of which one element (unit) of a system of social interaction can influence another - be this element an individual or a collective. In this perspective, power is then the use of control over a situation in which “alter” (literally “another, second” - Author), an element acting as an object for the “ego” (literally “I” - Author), is exposed to physical means (physical means - Parsons' italics - Author) to prevent him from doing something undesirable for the ego, or to “punish” him for doing something that should not be done from the ego’s point of view (in turn, punishment is intended to discourage the alter from doing something similar in the future), or to “symbolically” demonstrate the ego’s ability to control the situation, even regardless of the ego’s specific expectations that the alter may have undesirable aspirations from the ego’s point of view.”
T. Parsons (6, pp. 265-266)
The approach proposed by T. Ball is one-sided, because it does not take into account other aspects of power besides the communicative one. The problem can be resolved by considering power as an intermediary that connects the actions and obligations of people, which can, like Proteus, appear in different types. Are the prerequisites for political interaction between man and man contained in the action of force against force? - Yes, to the same extent as direct exchange, barter contains the prerequisites for economic relations. Such interactions, however, are related to a specific situation, and forceful coercion or exchange turns out to be one-time actions. The stability and constancy so necessary for politics and economics are achieved when coercion and exchange are transformed into a generalized symbol. Such symbols in politics become the resources of violence and the right to use them recognized in a given community (“monopoly of legitimate physical violence,” according to Weber), and in economics - some universal good, for example, gold.
“Power is understood here as an intermediary similar to money, circulating within what is called the political system, but also quite noticeably moving beyond its borders, into all the other three neighboring functional subsystems of society, as I understand them - economic (“converting” at the same time into a symbolic intermediary of the economy, i.e. into money - Author), integrative (societal subsystem of communities with an intermediary in the form of influence - Author) and structure-supporting (pattern-maintainance, or cultural with value commitments - as a symbolic intermediary - Author) ... Power is a generalized capacity to ensure the fulfillment of binding obligations by elements of a system of collective organization, when obligations are legitimized by their correspondence (with reference to their bearing on) to collective goals and where in case of disobedience a presumption of coercion is provided (enforcement) with the help of negative situational sanctions, regardless of who the agent of such coercion is... Taking possession of an object of utility through simple exchange (by bartering) for another object is not a monetary interaction. Likewise, according to my definition, securing compliance with a wish ... by threat of superior force is not an exercise of power. ... The ability to ensure obedience must be generalized so that it can be called power in the sense I propose, and not solely a function of some single act of authorization that its user is able to impose, and the medium itself must be “symbolic”...
T. Parsons (6, p. 306, 308)
Giving symbolic meaning to coercive violence does not end the complexity of power. Just as the simple accumulation and expenditure of gold does not create an efficient circulation of money, the accumulation of resources and rights to violence and their waste, firstly, are still of an immediate nature, and secondly, are carried out on a relatively limited scale. Archaic conditions require the concentration of gold and resources of violence (for example, squads) when and where power or trade relations must be carried out. With the growth of human communities, and with them political systems, further complication occurs political organization. It lies in the fact that stable functional relationships such as “debtor - creditor” and “subject - ruler” are created. Here you no longer need to carry gold everywhere, it is enough to have a receipt, a bill, etc. There is no need to surround yourself with vigilantes; the legally enshrined rights of rulers and the responsibilities of the ruled are sufficient. On this basis, both in politics and in economics, it is possible to build quite long chains and extensive networks of relationships between people. Due to the universal recognition of the law, its requirements are carried out “voluntarily”. Force is applied only to those who have not risen to this level of difficulty or have descended from it, placing themselves “outside the law.”
An even higher level of complexity is achieved when we begin to carry out operations with the functions themselves: with credit-debt, rent and similar relations in the economy, with laws and administrative regulations in politics. This is where that high, communicative level of interaction (“democratic deliberation”, i.e. discussion, discussion of alternatives) arises when there is no need for violence as such. Voluntariness becomes not a forced, but a real basis for power, which basically begins to rely on knowledge of publicly agreed upon goals and methods of achieving them, as well as sustainable principles and procedures of action. political actors for the implementation of relevant obligations.
“When we talk about knowledge and power, we are talking about the same reality. Society, due to the fact that it is a certain distribution of knowledge, is also an organized order of power... The existence of specific power, manifested at a specific point social structure, is associated with the existence of countless elements of knowledge scattered in all parts of the social order. The presence of a particular element of knowledge at a particular point in the social order may be determined by the combination of multiple phenomena of power (powers) in multiple places.”
B. Barnes (7)
However, such complex systems, which rely on extremely high levels of citizen knowledge and mutual trust, can fail if a significant part of the citizenry fails to perform up to the level of demand. Then the slide begins from this level lower and lower. Ultimately, one can reach the “bottom” when only the fist and the possession of goods remain the only hope. In politics, this is tantamount to the degradation of the political system to the state civil war, or “war of all against all” (T. Hobbes); in the economy - a complete collapse of not only credit, but also money circulation. In this sense, Ball is right when he argues that the use of unbound power is tantamount to the self-destruction of power. However, he is wrong when he gives this law an absolute character. The use of politically regulated violence (arrest, deportation, imprisonment) can be cathartic and only partially self-destructive in politics, just as bankruptcy and the sale of the property of an insolvent person is in economics.
“Of course, violence is by no means the normal or the only means of the state - there is no question of that - but it is, perhaps, a means specific to it. It is in our time that the state’s attitude towards violence is especially intimate (innerlich). In the past, by various unions - starting with the clan - physical violence was known as a completely normal remedy. In contrast to this, today we will have to say: the state is that human community which, within specific area- “area” is included in the attribute! - claims (successfully) a monopoly of legitimate physical violence.”
M. Weber (1, p.645)
With three basic aspects of power (or levels of its complexity), the interpretation of violence, this key phenomenon of politics, turns out to be quite flexible. At the lowest, initial level, the circulation of still only directive power can be interpreted as a simple distribution of resources of violence and the rights to use them. The functional interpretation of power reduces the movement of power to the delimitation of competencies. With a communicative understanding, power turns into cooperation (i.e., knowledge and trust) - both in the distribution of resources (not only power), and in the coordination of specialized political functions.
The textbook is focused on world experience and traditions of political science and political science education, the innovative and original nature of which is formed primarily in the multi-level structure of the material. In addition to the main text, the textbook includes interpretations, factual information, quotes from classical and latest literature, wide bank scientific biographies outstanding representatives of socio-political thought, definitions of main concepts. The textbook allows you to get a voluminous and holistic understanding of history and current state political science, about generally accepted and alternative theories and approaches.
For a wide range of readers: the peculiarities of the presentation of the material make it useful for both a student, a teacher, a political consultant, and a current politician.
Today in Russia political science is generally recognized academic discipline, which is taught in almost all higher education institutions educational institutions countries and even (under different names) in secondary educational institutions. However, this situation has arisen as a result of the development of both the country and scientific knowledge over the last 10-15 years. In other times, which to most Russians already seem separated by an entire historical era, a student interested in politics could only hear from his professor that it should be studied within the framework of historical materialism and scientific communism.
The years of transformation in Russia - with the lifting of ideological prohibitions, with the gradual development of politics itself in the form of a separate sphere of human life - gave a powerful impetus to the formation of political knowledge and analysis of the dynamically changing social reality. Political science has received official recognition as an academic discipline. Since the late 1980s. In the country's universities, departments are appearing one after another and mandatory courses in the fundamentals of political science are being introduced. However, unfortunately, the long-established state of affairs in higher education Russia led to the fact that the statistically overwhelming majority of emerging departments of political science were renamed former departments and departments of Marxism-Leninism and scientific communism with the corresponding personnel potential. This “birth trauma” of domestic political science, of course, could not but affect the quality of a very significant part of the literature available today on the domestic educational and educational market.
CONTENT
Preface.
Chapter 1 Politics - sphere public life and science.
Chapter 2 Political power.
Chapter 3 Political system.
Chapter 4 Political regime.
Chapter 5 Democracy.
Chapter 6 Political Institute.
Chapter 7 Political process.
Chapter 8 Political change.
Chapter 9 Political behavior.
Chapter 10 Political culture.
Chapter 11 Political ideology.
Chapter 12 World political system and international relationships.
Dictionary
Name index.
Download the e-book for free in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Political Science, Melville A.Yu., 2004 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.
Download pdf
You can buy this book below best price at a discount with delivery throughout Russia.
Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences Andrei Melville reflects on where modern political science is heading.
Is modern political science “American” or “international”?
At the end of August, the 110th annual conference of the American Political Science Association (APSA) took place in Washington, DC, in which several scientists from the Higher School of Economics participated. The word “American” in APSA’s name should not be misleading—in fact, it is perhaps the most important professional association in the field of political science in the world. In fact, this is an international association in scope, although, of course, there are also the influential International Political Science Association, and the European Consortium for Political Research, etc. It just so happens that now it is American researchers who are largely leading in political science, despite that, of course, our European colleagues also have major achievements. Please note: this was the 110th annual APSA conference. Here, time itself works for APSA. This suggests a comparison with Soviet-Russian political science (although I don’t like the word “political science”), which formally has a 25-year history - only in 1989 did the Higher Attestation Commission include political science in the list of scientific disciplines in our country.
The scale of the APSA conference is indicated by the following fact: the number of authors and co-authors of papers accepted for the conference exceeded six thousand people, but it is clear that not all of them were personally present at the conference. Among the most notable speakers at this forum were, on the one hand, the recognized classics - David Collier, John Furgeon, Barbara Geddes, Sidney Verba, Edward Mansfield, Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, J. Bingham Powell, Pippa Norris, Richard Ned Lebow and other. At the same time, there is a clear generational change in American and global political science, and the conference featured presentations from researchers such as Beatriz Magaloni, Jennifer Gandy, Jan Theorell, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jessica Fortin-Rittberger, Jörgen Moller, Jason Brownlee, Milovan Svolik, Lucan Way, Joseph Wright and others. These names are now well-known; they own the most notable recent publications on some of the most important problems of political science - regime changes, democratization factors, modern authoritarianism, dictator strategies, institutions in autocracies, statehood, statehood wealth, etc.
What to do for a modern political researcher
In modern political science - in research and in education - large disciplinary directions have taken root: political theory, comparative politics, methodology political studies, national (American, British, French, etc.) politics and international studies (IR). These are a kind of “umbrellas”, “bushes”, under each of which there are many “branches”, but it is in this capacity that they structure political knowledge today. In the most general terms, the work of the APSA conference was built under these “umbrellas” - of course, with countless “subtopics”.
Interesting trends are associated with political comparative studies. Traditionally, the discussion here has been primarily about cross-national comparisons or area studies. Now, it seems, there has been a clear interest in subnational comparative studies, when the focus of analysis is comparisons of certain aspects of the political life of regions individual countries or groups of EU member countries, Russia, China, Brazil, etc. Judging by the APSA conference, this trend in political comparative studies may become quite long-term. By the way, this may partly change the focus in the so-called “ Russian studies" The peak of interest in this issue - at least in the classical transitological vein - has passed. But attention to political regionalism (in the subnational meaning indicated above) is clearly visible.
Another notable trend is an increased focus on what is now called “comparative authoritarianism.” Previously, the problems of comparative democratization were at the forefront of research, which was reflected in curriculum. Now there are different “times” - empirical and theoretical-methodological. And accordingly, there is a keen interest in the analysis of modern autocracies and dictatorships, as well as various hybrid regimes (with all the conventionality of this concept). In particular, the new generation of political researchers whose publications are now most prominent in “top” journals is working in this direction.
We have learned to measure individual elements and segments of a phenomenon - more and more deeply and subtly, but does this bring us closer to understanding its causes and effects? And the question involuntarily arises: to what extent are we generally able to understand the political world around us? Not to mention forecasting?
One can also note the growing interest in the issues of the state, state building, and state capacity. And this is also understandable in the context of real political processes in the modern world - and the reactions of political science to them. Finally, one cannot help but mention another cross-cutting theme of the APSA conference - increased attention to the analysis of modern mass movements, primarily protest ones (“Arab Spring”, “Bolotnaya”, “Maidan”, etc.). And here the shortage is obvious general theory, corresponding to modern trends.
What they write about in scientific journals
As a member of the editorial board, I attended the annual meeting of the editorial board of the American Political Science Review (APSR), the “top” American (i.e., international) political science journal. Its impact factor in 2013-2014 was 3.84, and over five years it was 5.6. Over the course of a year, over a thousand manuscripts were sent to the journal from all over the world, and their publication rate was 7 percent. In the disciplinary areas of political science, publications on comparative politics dominate, accounting for almost half of all articles. The share of works on American politics and international relations is decreasing year by year.
It is worth making a clarification here: the Russian and American scientific traditions have different understandings of international relations research. In America (and partly in Europe) in political science, a distinction is made between works that are descriptive in nature, describe and characterize the foreign policy of states and interstate relations, alliances, etc. (what we usually study as international relations), and theoretical and methodological research based on rigorous methods and databases - we practically do not have such research, since there is no corresponding scientific tradition
Most of the work published in APSR is done using quantitative methods. But other leading political science journals, Comparative Politics and World Politics, have a significantly higher proportion of publications that rely on qualitative methods, both empirical and normative. This actually poses a big problem: is it possible, given the achieved level of political knowledge per se (if, of course, we are able to adequately assess it), to express preferences regarding the methods of analysis used?
The answer to this question is completely ambiguous.
Why the notorious “mainstream” is important
Some of my respected colleagues treat the so-called “mainstream” in modern political science with slight disdain - they, like me, however, want something new, more original. But here I always remember Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which, in particular, contains a provision about the necessary methodological “ladder”, which can be rejected only after one has climbed with its help to a new “plateau” of knowledge. So, the notorious “mainstream” in modern political science (including those with a passion for quantitative methods) is an analogue of that very “ladder” that must first be climbed, and then criticized and discarded.
However, there is another problem here, and no less important, including for the further dynamics of modern political science. Improving quantitative methods seems to have become one of the (self)goals of PoliSci. Nobody argues - this is one of the most important components of modern political knowledge, but only if we do not forget about the real, “living” political problems that lie at the basis of our research.
Is it possible to look at the whole world under a microscope?
I have a fairly clear impression, and not only after the APSA conference, that the current “method focus” in political science may need some correction. This is what I would most likely call, roughly speaking, a temptation by “subtle” methods.
The point is this: if we look at the most sophisticated publications in the best (and not only) journals on political science, we will see that articles using one or another quantitative methods prevail - despite all the conventions of this concept. But it is fundamentally important that, as a rule, their subject is “small” problems, individual nuances. There is no question - this is the most important material for understanding the “general” - if a general focus is meant. But it is not always the case. As we learn more and more about “less,” we risk losing the picture of the “forest” behind the individual “trees.”
One of our birth traumas is our lack of knowledge of rigorous methods, both quantitative and qualitative, and our inability to work with empirical databases. “I believe that...” is not an argument at all
We are revealing an increasing number of factors and the nuances of their possible impact on certain political effects, but due to their multiplicity, they are not always able to identify the directions of causal relationships. In a sense, this is an analogue of Gödel’s theorem, when in relation to the multiplicity of certain provisions there will always be those about which it is impossible to say whether they are true or false. In fact, this is a terrible situation for political science, especially normative science.
The same effect can be generated by many factors, which cannot be said to be decisive. And does he exist? Maybe causation in politics is multifactorial in nature and the sources of these effects are simply different?
Yes, over the past 25-30 years, political science has made enormous progress in the field of data collection, the development of rigorous methods of analysis - quantitative and qualitative. Much has become more measurable and comparable in the precise sense of the word. But how much does this contribute to expanding our understanding of the world around us?
Let's say we are looking at one political phenomenon that is incredibly interesting to us. We have learned to measure its individual elements and segments - more and more deeply and subtly, but does this bring us closer to understanding the causes of this phenomenon and its effects? And an involuntarily scary question arises for us: to what extent are we generally able to understand the political world around us? Not to mention forecasting?
Russian political science and world political science
If you look at the list of participants at the APSA conference, there are many Russian-sounding names. But when you start to get interested in the details, it turns out that they all work not in Russia, but in foreign universities - from “mediocre” ones to Harvard, Stanford and Oxford.
Institutionally, only the Higher School of Economics was represented at the conference from the Russian research community. The speakers and co-speakers were Dmitry Dagaev, Konstantin Sonin, Andrei Yakovlev, Evgenia Nazrullaeva and others. Our graduate, and now a student in the PhD program at UCLA, Anton Sobolev, also gave a co-report. My report was in the section on “Sequencing” - what comes first: a strong authoritarian state or democratization? I expected to meet colleagues from MGIMO, Moscow State University, St. Petersburg, Novgorod or Kazan at the conference, but not a soul.
There is no talk of any kind of discrimination. But this is still bad news for Russian “political science”. Many of my colleagues criticize me when I talk about the “flat” landscape of Russian “political science”, on which there are separate not even “hills”, but “heaps”, but otherwise there are “swamps” and bottomless “dips”, and self-reproducing ones . By the way, it’s easy to understand why this happened. The departments and faculties of political science, after all, arose for the most part by renaming the departments and departments of scientific communism, Marxism-Leninism, etc. They all came out of the same “overcoat,” and this tradition continues to reproduce itself. Of course, there are exceptions, and individual pockets of creative thought arise.
One of our birth traumas is our lack of knowledge of rigorous methods, both quantitative and qualitative, and our inability to work with empirical databases. “I believe that...” is not an argument at all.
In this regard, I would like to add that the APSR editorial board also discussed the issue of new requirements for the openness of sources used when submitting manuscripts for review. Since 2015, a requirement has been introduced to provide documentary evidence of the quantitative databases used for possible verification by reviewers or opponents. But with regard to qualitative data, this issue has not been resolved.
The book examines the theory and practice of the modern ideological strategy of US imperialism on the world stage. The main attention is paid to a critical analysis of the ideological concepts that justify Washington's departure from the policy of détente towards confrontation and psychological warfare. A detailed analysis of the structure and mechanisms of Washington’s ideological and political propaganda campaigns (“Soviet threat”, “human rights”, “ international terrorism", "Crusade for Democracy", etc.).
For international affairs specialists, ideological workers, social scientists, propagandists, and readers interested in the problems of ideological struggle on the world stage.
How to measure and compare levels of democratic development in different countries?
The book presents the methodological results of a research project carried out at MGIMO - University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia together with the Institute of Public Design.
The book provides an overview of historical forms of democracy, dominant theoretical models of democracy and its modern understandings, as well as research projects aimed at measuring the level of development of democracy in countries around the world.
The authors, starting from the perception of democracy as an essentially contested concept, introduced into their analytical model, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, a wide range of factors that influence the functioning of political institutions democracy. The results of the study are presented in the form of country ratings according to five indices (institutional foundations of democracy, statehood, external and internal threats, potential for international influence and quality of life), as well as in the form of a multidimensional classification of countries.
Counterculture and the “new” conservatism
The book is devoted to the study of the specifics of embodiment in Western culture, art, art history and aesthetics of the ideological contradictions of modern capitalism.
The authors reveal the inconsistency of the bourgeois cultural concept, which considers the 70s as a period of transition from counterculture to “new” conservatism, and show that the basis of the cultural and artistic process in the West is the interaction of historical, cultural and aesthetic factors with the dynamics of socio-political struggle, the course of which is determined by the steady expansion of the scope of the revolutionary-democratic, anti-imperialist movement.
Political science
The textbook was prepared by a team of authors from the Faculty of Political Science of MGIMO - University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia under the leadership of Professor A.Yu. Melville as part of a comprehensive scientific, educational and educational project aimed at developing new forms and content of political science education in Russia on the basis of modern pedagogical and scientific publishing methods.
The textbook is focused on world experience and traditions of political science and political science education, the innovative and original nature of which lies, first of all, in the multi-level structure of the material. In addition to the main text, the textbook includes interpretations, factual information, quotes from classical and modern literature, an extensive bank of scientific biographies of prominent representatives of socio-political thought, and definitions of key concepts.
The textbook allows you to get a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the history and current state of political science, about generally accepted and alternative theories and approaches.
Social philosophy of modern American conservatism
In a collection of materials by American authors - politicians, public figures, scientists and publicists - the causes and consequences of the turn to the right in Washington’s policy at the turn of the 80s are revealed, the socio-economic and political programs American conservatives, the ways of further development of American society are analyzed.
"pros" and "cons" of democracy
Surveyor. Who is a surveyor? Description of the profession. Profession surveyor Surveyor training
Magellanic clouds: who are they?
Pepper Steak Sauce Creamy Pepper Sauce
How to create a competent portfolio for a designer