Russian experience of gaining socio-political stability. Factors influencing political stability

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

One of the most important (although not the only) factors that people usually pay attention to is socio-economic development. The development imperative appears at one of the stages of social evolution as a condition for the self-preservation of power. If the government or the regime for some reason are not aware of this and become a brake on the implementation of urgent socio-economic transformations, then the outcome of such “stubbornness” most often becomes their elimination from the political arena. Elimination, we add, is associated with very painful consequences for society. The development imperative is therefore absolute and irreducible. Only a government that fully takes this imperative into account in its activities can be considered promising. Based on this understanding, a regime can be considered stable if it is capable of ensuring the integration of society along the paths of effective social economic development.

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

However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, even 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 large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only levels or degrees of stability-instability, but also different types of political stability. In this regard, researchers distinguish, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to change and the influence of the environment, and secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment.

Legitimacy of power

The problem of the legitimacy of political power, which was not posed in the twentieth century, but was especially emphasized by the works of M. Weber, continues to cause a lot of controversy among sociologists, philosophers and political scientists. In these debates, we will be interested in only one aspect: whether legitimacy is a necessary and sufficient condition for maintaining political stability. Researchers generally agree that legitimacy, if it exists, undoubtedly contributes to stabilization.

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

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

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

Legitimate power, therefore, contains a contradiction in itself and is potentially unstable. The presence of this contradiction, noticed by political analysis, contributed to the emergence and development in political science of the concept of “efficiency” of power, and also again attracted the attention of researchers to the problem of stabilizing a regime that does not have political and ideological legitimacy.

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

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

Efficiency of power

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

The concept of efficiency as such was introduced by S. Lipset in his work " Political man. Social foundations of politics." According to Lipset, the stability of power is determined not by one (legitimacy), but by two parameters - legitimacy and economic efficiency of power. He believed that the very legitimacy of a system of power can be achieved in two ways: either through continuity, its perception of the previous ones, one day established standards; either due to efficiency, i.e. the system itself acquiring the ability, even abandoning traditional norms, to solve pressing, primarily socio-economic problems social development. In the first case, Lipset undoubtedly had in mind the traditional type of legitimacy identified by Weber, based on a patriarchal or class system of social connections. This historical situation, in which the imperative of economic development has not yet manifested itself as a priority and urgency. Therefore, the authorities may be preoccupied with other, “their own” problems (intrigues, elimination of the recalcitrant, objectively unnecessary external wars).

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

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

Social and political stability is one of necessary conditions successful development of any society, in a transitional society the importance of stability increases many times over.

Politic 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 influences from the outside.

The main forms of implementation of the latter are subversive activities carried out special services and organizations, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, threat of force, etc. An adequate and timely response to such external influences allows you to protect your own national interests states, to achieve favorable conditions for their implementation. Negative Impact external influence on the political system may not be of a purposeful nature, but may be a consequence of general planetary difficulties and unresolved problems.

At the same time, external influences can also be positive for the political system if the state’s foreign policy does not contradict the interests of the international community. 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 humanity in times of crisis modern society and a sharp deterioration in quality natural factors. Taking these global needs into account 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 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 for stability, and therefore security for the country, with which the latter is closely connected.

Thus, political stability is ensured subject to the unity of the Constitution and laws Russian Federation, Fundamentals of legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and at the same time - with a clear distinction between the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between federal authorities state power and authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This key problem modern multinational Russia.

List of used literature and sources

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

2. Averyanov, Yu.I. Political science: encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1993.

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

4. Tishkov V. A. Post-Soviet Russia as nation state: problems and prospects // At the turn of the century. St. Petersburg, 1996.

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

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

Let us remind you that the Fund's rating has been published since the fall of 2012 on a monthly basis. Within its framework, experts assess the level of socio-political sustainability in all constituent entities of the Russian Federation on a 10-point scale, where 10 is the maximum score, 1 is the minimum. The assessment is accompanied by the publication of the most notable events of the month that could have a positive or negative impact to the level of stability or had a resonant nature. At the same time, the regions are divided into 4 categories according to the degree of socio-political stability and sorted within their category according to the dynamics of the rating over the last month.

How did the socio-political situation develop in April? The latest document states that April “passed in the Russian regions without serious incidents.” The exception was incidents that were not directly related to the socio-political situation (a high-profile murder in Belgorod, a fire in a psychoneurological hospital in the Moscow region, resonance in Dagestan in connection with the terrorist attack in Boston).

Fund experts associate the main political intrigues “with the activation law enforcement, developing in three main directions”: an “anti-corruption” campaign (“within the framework of which criminal cases were initiated against officials of local administrations”); attack on representatives political elite, closely related to opposition parties(arrest of deputy of the Arkhangelsk Regional Assembly of Deputies Alexey Peunkov - “A Just Russia”, detention of the mayor of Berdsk Ilya Potapov - Communist Party of the Russian Federation); large-scale inspections of non-governmental organizations with the aim of forcing them “to assume the status of “ foreign agent"). “Not all claims seem justified, which indicates the bias of law enforcement officers, and this affects the climate in the regions,” explained the head of the Fund, Mikhail Vinogradov.

The next group of problems for regional elites was “instability both at the federal level and in the development of criteria for assessing the effectiveness of governors.” Uncertainty future fate government of Dmitry Medvedev created “natural difficulties in the communication of regional leaders with federal officials.” Communication between federal and regional officials was complicated by contradictions between “government-approved proposals from the Ministry of Regional Development to evaluate the work of regional heads” and “ political assessments the work of the heads of governors who provide presidential structures.”

As we predicted earlier, the Foundation’s specialists note that “the process of abolishing direct elections of heads launched in the regions so far, as expected, does not go beyond North Caucasus", while "projects for extending the cancellation of elections to regions outside the Caucasus... are unlikely to receive federal support in the coming months." The statement by “Ramzan Kadyrov, who spoke in favor of direct elections in Chechnya” is regarded “as an attempt by the head of the republic to improve his status among other North Caucasian leaders.”

Top 10 events of April 2013 in regional policy, according to the Foundation, were the following: the appointment of Vyacheslav Shport as acting governor of the Khabarovsk Territory; abolition of direct elections of heads of Dagestan and Ingushetia; approval by the government of the Russian Federation of the report of the Ministry of Regional Development with the rating of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; inspections of NPOs in the regions; Valentina Matvienko’s initiatives to transfer the offices of large companies to the regions; murder of 6 people in the center of Belgorod; arrest of a deputy of the Arkhangelsk Regional Council of Deputies from " Fair Russia» Alexey Peunkov; detention of the mayor of Berdsk Ilya Potapov; growing tension in relations between Ingushetia and Chechnya; arrest of the director of grant programs of the Southern Regional Resource Center, Mikhail Savva.

As for the breakdown of regions, the top ten with maximum socio-political stability (over 8 points) included Yamalo-Nenets autonomous region, Ivanovo region, Khakassia, Mordovia, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Kaluga Ulyanovsk, Tyumen, Amur and Penza region. They are joined by a dozen with high socio-political stability ( from 7.0 to 7.9 points), which included: Belgorod, Sakhalin and Sverdlovsk regions, Sakha, Rostov region, Mari El, Nenets Autonomous and Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous region, Nizhny Novgorod and Magadan regions. And, as they say, let these regions continue to remain in their top tens. Regions with average stability (from 6.0 to 6.9 points) were also identified, which included Moscow and St. Petersburg, where things are going with varying degrees of success.

Meanwhile, among the problem regions that received the least favorable forecast of socio-political stability (less than 6.0 points), the strongest drop in stability was noted in Smolensk (4.4, a drop of 0.4 compared to March), Arkhangelsk (4.5 , – 0.4), Bryansk (5.3, – 0.3), Yaroslavl (5.8, –0.2), Volgograd (5.9, – 0.4), Pskov (6.7, – 0.4), Kaliningrad (6.5, – 0.2) and Kirov (5.9, – 0.2) regions, as well as the Stavropol Territory (6.1, – 0.4) and Kalmykia (although the level of social -political stability and increased by 0.1 compared to March, but amounted to 4.0). Common reasons for the worsening situation include poor roads, healthcare and housing and communal services tariffs. Negative influence Problems with governors and other officials also had an impact on socio-political stability.

The list of the most unstable regions is traditionally completed national republics: Dagestan tops it with 1.4 points, followed by Ingushetia (2.2), Kabardino-Balkaria (3.3) and Karachay-Cherkessia (4.2).

Many regional experts believe that the rating of socio-political stability of regions by the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation generally reflects the real state of affairs in the territories. But some of them indicate that the rankings do not always correctly select events that had an impact on the development of the situation. This opinion was expressed by the director of the Institute of Socio-Economic and Humanitarian Research of the Southern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Viktor Avksentyev: “The fact that events that did not receive it before are now being publicized indicates a destabilization of the situation in the region. And the rating probably reflects this. But this is determined by other factors and signs. Those events that are noted in it took place, but there were also other events that were more significant for the stability and instability of the region, which are not mentioned in the ratings.”

The same opinion is shared in Tatarstan. The fact that the level of stability in the republic was assessed at 6.4 points did not surprise local political scientists, but the list of factors that influenced the assessment attached to the rating was criticized by them. For example, in this list, among the “plus” factors are “the launch of a new plant for the production of industrial electronics in the Laishevsky district” and “the launch of automobile production in the territory of the Alabuga SEZ Explorer" “The opening of factories has no direct relation to socio-political stability,” says Associate Professor of the Department of Political Science at Kazan University federal university Nikolai Ignatiev. - This could be taken as a decisive argument only in conditions of crisis development. Socio-political stability is still largely measured by the relationship between government and society, opposition and government. And these parameters are in no way visible in the given list of influencing factors.”

Without a doubt, the local perspective is different, but a general assessment of the situation in the country is also necessary. Presenting the first issue of the rating, Mikhail Vinogradov commented on his initiative as follows: “The decision to publish a new rating of regions was made due to the obvious lack of integral assessments of the socio-political climate in Russian regions. Most of the published rating studies, as a rule, are limited to assessing the potential of current governors or contain exclusively economic assessments (for example, in terms of assigning credit ratings), weakly associated with social and political risks. Assignment of ratings (on a 10-point scale) is given taking into account both long-term and medium-term factors (competitiveness of the economy, the presence of sources of self-development, the presence of a system for resolving socio-political disagreements) and current events.”

It seems to us that the Foundation was quite successful in this.

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political Stability"

SAMARA 2006

Political stability is an integral part general concept stability of the state. Synonyms for “stability” are “constancy”, “immutability”, “steadiness”. “Political stability is considered as the psychological ability of the population to maintain calm behavior, despite external or internal unfavorable conditions. Political instability develops only in cases where the mass of people are psychologically prepared to react aggressively to any socio-economic events” (A.I. Yuryev). An increase in tension in problem areas of society leads to a violation of psychological and political stability. That is, the presence and escalation of destabilizing factors in society. 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, even 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 levels or degrees of stability and instability, but also different types of political stability. In this regard, researchers distinguish, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to change and the influence 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 that an authoritarian, charismatic leader is capable of ensuring the stabilization of society on the path to a breakthrough to new frontiers of social and economic progress. The reign of any of the strong, reformist-minded political leaders we take - Peter I, Alexander II, early Stalin - everywhere we see grandiose socio-economic results, the speed of which cannot be compared with the time frame in which such transformations took place. were carried out in the West. However, as soon as the energy at the top weakened for some reason, the development of society was hampered, stabilization

Political stability in Russian literature is understood as:

A system of connections between different political entities, characterized by a certain integrity and efficiency of the system itself.

Orderly processes in politics, the inconsistency and conflict potential of which are regulated with the help of political institutions.

Agreement between the main social and political forces regarding the goals and methods of social development.

State political life society, manifested in the sustainable functioning of all political institutions existing in society, associated with the preservation and improvement of structures, with their qualitative certainty.

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

You should also turn to the most popular approaches to determining political stability in Western political science:

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

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

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

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

G). Stability as the absence of structural changes in a political system or as the presence of 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 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 in the functioning of the political system is ensuring its stability. This means the system maintains its institutions, roles and values ​​under changing conditions social environment, the implementation of its main functions. Stability and sustainability of a political system is a state when any deviations in the actions of political subjects are corrected by the implementation of established, legitimized norms.

Political stability should also be understood as component general condition stability of the state. This interpretation of the concept gives a new dimension to the emerging concept “ sustainable development» society. Political stability is ensured not only by the action of political factors themselves, the balance of elements of the political system, and the stability of political relations. An indispensable condition 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 sustainability - with its strategic, historical dimensions. Stability in the country can be achieved through a tactical and temporary agreement between the main political forces, but the strategic stability of political life may still be very far away, as was the case in France in February 1848, then the workers and bourgeoisie, who initially formed the Provisional Government, already in June of the same year clashed on the streets of Paris in barricade battles. Organic stability, inertia, as opposed to simple 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 it is cast for a relatively long time political culture the whole society. So, political stability expresses a state of political dynamics in which a temporary balance (or balance) of the forces of the main political factors has been achieved, after which subsequent destabilization and disruption of this balance is possible. The processes of establishing temporary stability in the absence of strategic stability are very characteristic of many political regimes in Asia and Africa; conditions opposite to stability and stability are instability and instability. The extreme form of instability of political dynamics is systemic crisis 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: firstly, a radical change in the balance of power between the two leading classes, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, when the latter seized bureaucratic control over the management of French society, and secondly, the decline of the old political institutions that maintained the previous balance of social forces. He adds to this that administrative reforms 1787 (provincial assemblies, etc.), which dramatically changed the institutional structure of France, increased its political instability, and thus the reforms brought the revolution closer.

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

Conflicts play an ambiguous role in the functioning of the political system. Their occurrence is an indicator of a certain trouble or 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 is not to say that society is characterized by constant instability."

These words of R. Bendix are true, although with great reservations they can be attributed to interethnic conflicts, which are difficult to transform in any way and the consequences of which are the most destructive. This is largely explained by the fact that the reasons that cause them are, as a rule, complex in nature. 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 such a basis can take on harsh forms and continue for years (or even decades), shaking the foundations of the political system of society.

Political stability - a stable state of a political system, allowing 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.

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

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relationships dominates, fighting the community 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 a social system.

There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous And mobilization

· Mobilization stability occurs in public structures, where development is initiated “from above”, society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize the goal at certain period. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, General civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the interests of the state may be paramount, ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader who takes upon himself the responsibility to express the interests of society and is capable of ensuring its progress during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be physical and spiritual potential leader; the military status and combat capability of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society that can separate the holder of power from the people; Availability political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army, etc. social factors, contributing to the growth 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 its social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

· Autonomous stability type, i.e. independent of desire and some kind of will. specific social and political subjects, arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of government and society emerges, 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 legitimation of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number management functions the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of gradual strengthening of positions democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts are legalized and resolved in civilizational ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in the well-being of the country in comparison with others is cultivated, and growth dynamics are maintained. welfare. An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. Democracy in autonomous systems becomes a stable tradition and a civilizational value.

Factors of instability include the struggle for power between competing factions ruling elite, creating a threat to the integrity and the very existence of states, personification of power, dominance in public policy corporate interests of the ruling elites, the presence of inter-ethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of democratic power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinairism in politics, etc. Instability can manifest itself in such forms as change political regime, change of government, armed struggle with regime leader, activation of opposition forces, etc.

Conclusion.

The central categories in political science are political systems and political regimes, which have an indissoluble connection. The political system oversees the implementation of activities related to the functioning of government, while the political regime is the way of organizing this system. Each country has its own political regime and its own political system, but many countries have similar features. There are three types of political systems: democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. From the point of view of the form of government, they distinguish: presidential, parliamentary, monarchical, aristocratic and republican political regimes.

Political regime, political system and political stability are all components of political science as the science of politics. Politics at one time has a huge impact both on the fate of entire states and on the fate of each person individually. This determines the formation and development of a special branch of scientific research focused on the study of politics.

Political knowledge is very important today for every person, regardless of his professional affiliation, since, living in society, he must interact with other people around him and the state.

Bibliography.

1. Pugachev V.P., Soloviev A.I. Introduction to Political Science. M.: 1998.;

2. Gadzhiev K.S., Political science: Textbook for higher education educational institutions., M.: Logos 2001.;

3. Vasilik M.A. Political science (online textbooks), Chapter 7, website http://uchebnik-online.com.;

4. Mukhaev R.T., Political science. Textbook for universities. M.: Prior 2000

This is a stable state of a political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of the external and internal environment, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change. Significant contribution to the research by 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 causes instability of the political system, while the presence of only one of them leads to relative stability/instability. Huntington links 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 realize a goal for a certain period of time. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, General civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take upon themselves the responsibility to express the interests of society and are able to ensure its progress during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of the mobilization S.p. can serve the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the military status and combat capability of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society that can separate 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 its social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse 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 smb. specific social and political subjects, arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of government and society emerges, 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 legitimation of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of management functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of the gradual strengthening of the position of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts here are legalized and resolved in civilizational ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in a prosperous country in comparison with others is cultivated. , the dynamics of welfare growth are maintained. An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system, without presuming the role of the main subject of social changes, is called upon to maintain existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value. 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 states, the 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 democratic power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinaire politics, etc. Instability can manifest itself in such forms as changes in the political regime, change of government, armed struggle against the ruling regime, activation of opposition forces, etc.