GRISHAEVA O.N., GRISHIN О.Е., POPOV S.I. Dynamics in the Development of the Institute of Presidency in Russia
O.N. GRISHAEVA Candidate of Sciences (political sciences), Associate Professor at the Chair of history and archaeology, Yelets State University named after I. I. Bunin, Yelets, Russia
О.Е. GRISHIN Candidate of Sciences (political sciences), Associate Professor at the Chair of political analysis and management, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
S.I. POPOV Candidate of Sciences (political sciences), Associate Professor at the Chair of political analysis and management, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
DYNAMICS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF PRESIDENCY IN RUSSIA
The study analyzes the dynamics of the Institute of presidency in the Russian Federation at the present stage. The authors note that a new stage in the development of the Institute of presidency in modern Russia is associated with the political personalization of V. V. Putin. Such period becomes highly dependent on the need to constantly respond to the challenges in order to maintain the stability of the political system. Institutional choice in favor of the presidency, which acquires unique features in subordination from the political traditions of a particular political system, is almost always the result of a certain consensus between the key political actors.
Key words: Institute of presidency, president, dynamics of development, internal and external challenges, V. V. Putin's rating, political system, political elite.
The emergence of the institute of presidency in the political design of many countries comes as a response to the challenges that are relevant both to the state itself and to the political elites. Challenges can be associated with a variety of causes and are both endogenous and exogenous. Any challenge, as a rule, is an incentive for the development of the institute of presidency, and almost always has a mobilizing effect, forcing the system to invent new ways of institutional adaptation. The institutional choice in favour of a presidency that acquires unique features, depending on the political traditions of a particular political system, is almost always the result of a certain consensus among key political actors.
The establishment of the Institute of presidency in Russia was connected with the current internal political, social and economic situation. V.T. Tretyakov notes that the genetic feature of the Russian system of power leaves a big imprint on the formation of the Institute of presidency in Russia. At the time, the popularly elected President, as the guarantor of the Constitution, was called upon to stabilize the political situation, to restrain the emerging centrifugal tendencies; to promote the development of multiparty system in the conditions of ideological pluralism and rejection of political monism. According to S. V. Gordienko, the constitutional design of the Institute of presidency in Russia resulted from borrowing foreign experience. Its introduction was aimed at strengthening the legitimacy of political power and its strengthening that was supposed to contribute to the establishment of a mechanism for coordinating the relations between sovereign republics, as well as strengthen the independence of Russia in the conditions of the fall of the authority and influence of the central government. The very fact of the general presidential elections also served as a significant basis for the legitimization of this political institution. On the one hand, the elections confirmed the fairness of B.N. Yeltsin’s claims for presidency and on the other hand, it was a chance for other political actors, which consolidated the right of the opposition, to be present in the political space.
In Russia, in fact, the fullness of the supreme state power, despite its constitutional limitation, is concentrated in the hands of the President of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the formed institute of the presidency in Russia fully fits into the society and meets its social expectations. The results of sociological research show that at the present stage of development of the Russian society citizens positively assess the activities of the institute of presidency, personified by the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin. According to sociological surveys carried out by VTsIOM, the work of V. V. Putin is highly appreciated by Russians, and in that survey showing the trust rating of various politicians that of the President has been growing for several weeks in a row.
Currently, the President of the Russian Federation is V.V. Putin again. His third presidential term does not seem to have surprised either the Russian public or the community of political researchers. At the beginning of the third presidential term, he initiated the adoption of a law permitting citizens to elect governors. He changed his own approach to power: he used the language of values and ideas, emphasized respect for the rights of various structures of state power and the policy of non-interfere in the activities of other branches of power, which he constantly stressed.
V.V. Putin's third presidential term was based on a broader public consensus than the previous terms. Such attitude, it would seem, contradicted the protest experience preceding V. V. Putin's political legitimation in 2012. It can be assumed that the new challenges provoked resistance, the resistance had to be massive and the society had to be strongly consolidated.
Vladimir Putin said at a concert dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the automobile plant in Nizhny Novgorod that he would run for President in the 2018 elections. He made his first campaign speech on 19 December 2017 at the Forum of the Popular Front.
The high level of support and approval of V. V. Putin's activities can be associated with a certain stabilization of the domestic political situation in the country. Of course, this trend can hardly be called really stable, because after a certain time the domestic political situation became much more difficult. On the other hand, for the vast majority of Russian society domestic political problems receded into the background against the challenges of the international politics and the way people identified themselves with Vladimir Putin’s achievements, his firmness and intransigence in the international arena.
Despite the effects that testify to the authoritarian results of Putin's presidency for the political system of modern Russia, the prerequisites begin to emerge, partly justifying such authoritarian shift.
The institute of presidency in Russia is in constantly changing. Its structures may change depending on both: the current political situation and the impact of various challenges that may become relevant to the political system of Russia as a whole in the near future. Political practice shows that the institution of the presidency is strongly dependent on the need for constant response to the incoming challenges that ensures its close connection with the current political agenda.
The importance of the head of state as a central component of the political and administrative system of Russia increases in the conditions of political and socio-economic reforms in the country. All this demonstrates the need for the sustained and focused efforts on the part of the supreme authority.
Vladimir Putin has become a symbol of stability in Russian society, and society expects him to become a leader of future progress. Apparently, it is no coincidence that the hashtag "stability" (#stability) that appeared in its time in the Internet space has now penetrated the political speech practices. Despite the abundance of negative connotations, it should be noted that Russia during the presidency of Vladimir Putin still demonstrates a more stable political development if compared to a number of other political systems (Ukraine, for example). Indeed, some challenges facing modern Russia, as well as its institute of presidency are a kind of a test for its stability. Will it be eroded and loosened? In our opinion, this question can already be answered in the near future.
Along with "stability," which is often mentioned when it comes to the presidency of Vladimir Putin, there is also his personal political experience, his leadership traits. There is also a certain political reputation, which is inherent to the incumbent President of Russia.
In our view, there are internal and external challenges facing Russia that threaten the stability of its political system. External challenges include economic and financial sanctions, investment outflows, pressure from international courts, cultural depletion, serious reputational costs, etc.
The prospect of further external challenges may gradually lead to the formation of even greater distrust on the part of the Russian ruling class that may provoke its closure solely on the problems of personal survival and institutional adjustments to the situation with the account for the existing domestic political agenda. The decline in the price of oil and the weakening of the Ruble leads to an increase in retail prices felt primarily by the poorly protected social strata.
The growth of tariffs and food prices, an increase in the prices for travel and utilities, unemployment, reduction in the number of medical workers in a certain way significantly increase the protest potential, expanding it to those social groups that were not previously noticed in the protest activity, but, on the contrary, acted as a social support base for V. Putin and the United Russia political party. Instead of radical groups, the power confronts conformal enough state employees which obviously indicates that the degree of public discontent begins to increase significantly. The protest potential is also pushed to the online sphere, which partially contributes to the formation of a sense of calm and consensus.
Further development of the institution of presidency will largely depend on how Russia will overcome the existing internal and external challenges and how sensitive such challenges will be. Some experts believe that the development of the institution of the presidency should be carried out through a direct improvement of the legal framework governing the activities of this institution.
In our opinion, sooner or later, there may be a situation when the institution of the presidency will take responsibility for the situation in the country, because each time it is more and more difficult to effectively use the mechanisms of shifting the blame to lower authorities. Speaking about the internal challenges for the institute of presidency in Russia, we should also name the issues connected with placement of elite around the figure of V.V. Putin. As a result of sanctions, many oligarchs have lost their wealth, which makes us to assume that it is the entourage of the Russian President that can become an important actor in the future changes of the institution of the presidency itself and transformation of its structures and meanings.
It should be emphasized that the main condition for the successful functioning of any state institution are positive assessments of its activities by the society, as the public legitimacy allows Russian authorities to be more confident in their political practices.
An important factor that strengthens power in modern Russia is the outright weakness of its political opposition, whose activities do not significantly affect the dynamics of V. Putin's rating. Moreover, the government is trying to minimize the influence of the opposition on political processes, knowing full well that the amended legislation narrows the prospects of protest. S. V. Ustimenko notes that the current political system is not able to ensure the arrival of new bright leaders from senators, deputies of the State Duma or governors to the state power. At the moment, the legislation of the Russian Federation, rigidly suppressing the non-forced protest manifestations, is an important support for the political regime. In our opinion, the evolution of the institution of presidency towards strengthening the power of the President is obvious in modern Russia.
To date, the government pays great attention to its own rating as it represents an eloquent evidence of public reaction to the policy it is waging. This is fully applicable to the dynamics of V.V. Putin's rating, whose rating is tied up to both the international agenda and the socio-economic crisis in the country.
Currently, in Russia, the reserve of reliability of the political system is much greater than the margin of economic system safety. The fall in the population’s living standards, taking place now, can provoke a stream of claims to the authorities, including, personally to V. V. Putin. Therefore, a new agenda should emerge, based not only on stability, but also on real concrete progress in all spheres of Russian society.
The potential of the further development of the institute of presidency in Russia will depend, on the one hand, on the ability of the government and society to maintain consensus on the perception of the policy of the Russian President. On the other hand, the prospects for the development of the institute of presidency may be related to the behavior of the Russian President's entourage. It is the Russian ruling class that can become an important actor in the future changes of the institution of presidency and transformation of its structures and meanings. They will have to propose an optimal candidate for the post of president in 2024.
Thus, in the near future, there will be certain tendencies to strengthen the position of the institute of presidency. It will be facilitated by a number of factors: the need for a strong government to ensure the security and integrity of the country in the face of the negative impact of Western countries on domestic political processes; the demands for stability existing in the society; the low level of trust in most state power institutions, political parties and public organizations, business, economic and political elite, and the high level of trust in the personality of the President.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC LIST:
1. Andreeva I.E. Formation and development of the institute of presidency in Russia // Army and society. – 2013. – № 2 (34).
2. Vladimir Putin has put forward his candidacy for President. – URL: https://esquire.ru/articles/34962-putin-elections-2018/.
3. Glebov V.A., Davydov V.N. Legal framework for the development of civil society // Issues of politology. – 2017. – № 4.
4. Gordienko S.V. Institute of presidency in Russia, USA, France: conceptual framework and political-administrative practice (comparative analysis): Abstract of thesis to the degree of the candidate of sciences. 23.00.02. – М., 2004.
5. Grishaeva O.N. V. Putin's third presidential term: on the question of legitimacy // Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. – 2014. – № 3.
6. Grishaeva O.N., Grishin O.E., Tolochko, A.V. Presidential rating in Russia: factors of stability and growth // Issues of politology. – 2017. – № 4.
7. Activities of state institutions. – URL: https://wciom.ru/news/ratings/odobrenie_deyatelnosti_gosudarstvennyx_institutov/.
8. Trust in politicians. – URL: https://wciom.ru/news/ratings/doverie_politikam/.
9. Institute of presidency in Russia: legal basis and role in modernizing the society. Round table discussion. – URL: http://pandia.org/text/77/436/2074.php.
10. Slizovsky D.E. Political leadership of Russ – Russia: the origins and contradictions of Grand STRATEGY. – M.: Publishing house of the journal Issues of politology, 2017.
11. Skiperskikh A.V. Right to resistance: political and philosophical retrospective // Socium and vlast. – 2015. – № 5.
12. Skiperskikh A.V., Tolochko A.V. Opposition parties in Russia and Uzbekistan: specific features of institutionalization in the post-Soviet period // Legal policy and legal life. – 2009. – № 1.
13. Ustimenko S.V. Problems of modernization of the political system in today Russia // Vlast. – 2012. – № 4.
MEDVEDEV N.P., GLEBOV V.A., MADATOV А.S. To the Question of Typologization of the Russian Regions
N.P. MEDVEDEV Doctor of Sciences (political sciences), Professor, Peoples ' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
V.A. GLEBOV Candidate of Sciences (law), Deputy head of the Chair of political analysis and management, Peoples ' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
А.S. MADATOV Candidate of Sciences (philosophy), Assistant Professor at the Chair of political analysis and management, Peoples ' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
TO THE QUESTION OF TYPOLOGIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN REGIONS
The article specifies the method of typologization of the Russian regions as the subjects of the Russian Federation. An attempt is made to update the existing scientific and practical model of classification of regions of modern Russia. The features of socio-economic and political criteria in assessing the status and resource capabilities of the region are emphasized. The article describes the differences in determining the ratings of Russian regions in the context of assessing the effectiveness of regional governments and in determining the types of relevant regions.
Key words: region, subject of the Russian Federation, typologization, regional government, socio-economic development of the region, political development of the region.
The problems of typologization of the Russian Federation regions are insufficiently investigated in the scientific literature. And the available scientific publications on this issue are usually associated with the characteristics of some very specific subjects of the Federation or with the study of socio-economic problems. At the same time, the problem of classification of Russian regions on the basis of complex criteria related to all spheres of regional public life becomes quite obvious. Although, in recent years, various public funds have tried to analyze the effectiveness of regional governments on the basis of complex indicators, but scientific generalizations in this area are clearly not enough.
Often, while classifying subjects of the Russian Federation, authors stress their socio-economic aspects related to financial, economic, budgetary and social differences and features that determine the socio-economic typology of the subjects as Russian regions. Such a typology of the regions is quite general and there is a great diversity and ambiguity of approaches in the differentiation of regions, it should be also noted that many authors try to link the economic interests of the subjects (of course primarily of the regional political elite) with their political preferences.
There are several approaches within the framework of such classification. One of them is that 89 subjects of the Russian Federation are divided into donor and recipient regions according to their budget possibilities (in Europe they also have the name of beneficiary regions). As of today (at the end of 2017), according to various data, 11 subjects of the Russian Federation are donors, and 74 subjects are recipients. This information was announced at the final annual conference (December 2017) by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.
Another classification is based on the different resource capabilities of the regions of Russia. In accordance with it, all Russian regions are divided into regions with sufficient resources and depressed (crisis) regions.
The first group includes strategically promising regions, although to date, some regions from this group remain subsidized due to the undeveloped natural resources and ineffective use of economic potential. As part of this approach, specialists , who have been for many years engaged in the studies of the formation of regional interests and problems of analysis of economic aspects of regional policy, divide the first group of strategically promising regions into four subgroups: regions with developed mining industry, trade and industrial regions, industrialized regions, agricultural and agro-industrial regions. Such classification is based on the principle of linking the economic potential and resources of the regions with their interests.
The first subgroup consists of regions with a developed extractive industry with a large export potential. t includes the Komi Republic, Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Yakutia, Khabarovsk territory, Tyumen, Sakhalin, Magadan region, Yamalo-Nenets and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous districts. The availability of natural resources, budget independence, active foreign economic relations largely affect the direction of their model of socio-political development.
Regional elites of these subjects of the Russian Federation would like to engage in foreign economic activity independently, without the state control. Therefore, an important element of their strategy is to seek independence from the Federal center. The greatest success in this direction was achieved by the authorities of the Republic of Tatarstan. Tatarstan acquired ownership rights to subsoil and land and until recently disposed of a large share of oil produced in the territory of the Republic, although such actions of the state authorities of the subject of the Federation are in conflict with the Constitution of Russia. But, the actions of Tatarstan were justified by the fact that from 1993 to 2017 between the Republic of Tatarstan and the Russian Federation there was a separate system of contractual relations. Now this Agreement is not extended and has no legal force.
Along with the republics, oil and gas regions (Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamal-Nenets Autonomous districts) have a great weight. The fuel and energy complex is the main Russian exporter, revenues from its activities provide a significant part of the country's budget revenues. In accordance with Russian legislation, in the context of the expansion of economic and political rights of the regions, no decision on the development of natural resources in the subject of the Federation can be made without the consent of the state authorities of the relevant subjects and local authorities.
As a rule, in the conditions of strict centralization of the Russian system of government, export-oriented regions with a developed extractive industry support the Federal government, even if not all agree with its policies.
According to experts, the second subgroup is formed by commercial and industrial regions of Russia. It includes the largest megacities Moscow and St. Petersburg, coastal areas with large ports: Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Kamchatka, Arkhangelsk regions, Primorsky Krai. Strategically, these regions are focused on the development of foreign trade relations. Today, these subjects of the Russian Federation accumulate a considerable part of the capital, they have their own private banks and financial-industrial structures.
They are interested in cooperation with external partners, and their future depends on how well they will be able to fit into the international division of labor. Federal legislation creates favorable conditions for the prospects of foreign economic integration of these regions.
The resources of commercial and industrial regions differ, and, consequently, their market strategies differ. Due to the limitations in the development of natural resources the Far East and the Kaliningrad region, as some experts believe, will develop as development zones for the neighboring countries. According to scientists, in the near future separatist trends may increase in these regions, but they will be economic, not political.
Regional and local elites of these regions, taking advantage of the strategic positions of their territories, seek to lower the level of influence of the Federal center and behave quite confidently and independently towards it. However, in their strife to free themselves from the dictates of the Center, they seek to establish their own control over the economic resources of the region. At the same time, from 2012 to 2018, as part of the fight against corruption, the control of federal law enforcement agencies over the activities of the regional leaders has sharply increased. As a result, the economic activity of regional governments has become fully controlled by the federal ministries.
The third subgroup includes industrialized regions (Udmurtia, Krasnoyarsk territory, Sverdlovsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk, Tula, Tomsk regions). Their economic structure is dominated by high-tech military-industrial complex or traditional heavy industry. At present, the regions of this subgroup are undergoing a deep restructuring. However, regional elites see an access to an effective level of work in different ways. Most of them support the option of Russian modernization with the active participation of the state. At the same time, realizing that they cannot cope with their own problems, they count on the help of the Federal center.
As to their political preferences, the above subjects of the Russian Federation fully supported the federal power during the 90th years of the last century and especially at the beginning of two thousandth.
The fourth subgroup consists of agricultural and agro-industrial regions (Central Black Earth region comprising Belgorod, Lipetsk, Bryansk, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk regions; Krasnodar and Stavropol regions, part of the Volga regions). These subjects of the Russian Federation exist at the expense of their own resources, fully provide themselves with food and partially consumer goods. But, often, some of these subjects are in the ranks of the beneficiary regions.
In political terms, the regions of this group were in opposition to the Federal government until the beginning of the two thousandth, and up to the adoption of measures to centralize the Russian system of power, they once formed the so-called Russian "red belt", the rural electorate of which was mainly Communist. Although, according to the results of the parliamentary elections of the last two convocations, these political features are no longer present.
Depressed (crisis) regions are a special qualification characteristic of regions, first of all, with poor resource opportunities. This group includes such subjects of the Russian Federation as the republics of the North Caucasus: Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan, Ingushetia, as well as the republics of Altai, Buryatia, Tuva, Kalmykia. They have low economic potential, and the prospects for their development are problematic. In these regions, represented mainly by the republics, the depressed economy overlaps with the ethnic factor and the high level of unemployment. Here, the regional elites over the years of economic and political reforms have formed a rigid model of public administration and fully control the economy. At the same time, terrorism and religious extremism have not yet been completely eradicated in some of these regions. What significantly affects both economic activity and political stability of individual regions.
According to most experts, in recent years, depressed regions, with all the differences in the preferences and orientations of political regional elites, are characterized by the widespread use of administrative resources in the elections of all levels of government.
Within the framework of socio-economic typology, there are other approaches. So, some authors divide all regions into poor (problematic) and rich. In turn, the poor regions are divided into backward (traditionally backward) and depressed, and the rich are divided into two large groups-traditionally developed and resource (program – developing).
Backward are those territories that for a significant period (decades) were at a low level of social and economic development. The main criteria for classifying a territory as backward is the low level of production of goods and services per capita, real per capita income, underdeveloped social and engineering infrastructure, extremely poor state of scientific, technical and human resources. The backward subjects of the Russian Federation include the republics of Adygea, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Ingushetia, North Ossetia-Alania. Moreover, traditional territories may be located in unfavorable and favorable and satisfactory favorable natural conditions.
Authors call depressive such regions, which relatively recently (20-25 years ago), were sufficiently well developed or did not belong to the backward regions, but under the influence of various reasons were thrown back in their economic development. As a criterion of depression of the region is considered a significant decline in production in the traditional, leading to the subject of the Russian Federation sectors of production and resource base. As a rule, the following subjects of the Russian Federation are considered depressive: the Republic of Mari El, Mordovia, Udmurtia, Chuvashia, Bryansk, Kirov, Kurgan, Pskov, region, where due to a sharp decline in production volumes, primarily in the military-industrial and agro-industrial complexes, there has been a serious regional economic crisis. But, such estimates are changeable and many regions of this group may have recently changed their status.
From the above it follows that different authors put different meanings in the concept of "depressed region."
Traditionally developed regions have emerged relatively long ago and, unlike the depressive ones, were able to adapt to the situation during the period of radical economic reforms for a number of objective and subjective reasons. These include: the Republic of Bashkortostan and Tatarstan, Sverdlovsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk region, Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Resource areas provide their relatively high well-being, mainly due to natural resources that have a high and stable demand in the world market (oil, gas, etc.).
The existing inequality of natural-climatic, geographical, economic, historical and other conditions of development of subjects of the Federation objectively causes inequality of living standards of their inhabitants who, being citizens of the uniform Russian state, have to enjoy equal constitutional rights. This state of affairs cannot but cause serious political tension between the regions. Therefore, the regional policy of the federal center should be aimed at ensuring uniform social standards and equal social protection, guaranteeing the social rights of citizens established by the Constitution of Russia, regardless of the place of residence and economic opportunities of the regions. And this problem for many years remains one of the most difficult and unsolvable tasks for the Government of the Russian Federation.
Over the past six years, the method of determining the rating of regions has changed, but according to some experts, the situation with the typology of regions has not changed significantly, a group of regions with a "relatively high level of development and the level of development above average" includes little more than 10 subjects of the Russian Federation. Among them are Moscow and St. Petersburg ("the largest financial, economic and industrial centers"), "the largest regions of industrial specialization" are Moscow, Perm, Samara and Chelyabinsk regions, which concentrate a quarter of the total population of Russia.
The group of regions with an "average level of development" comprises, according to experts, 20 subjects of the Russian Federation. Its composition, if we compare the year 2001 to the beginning of 2018, has changed significantly. 16 regions are in the group with the level of "below average". The largest (by the number of subjects of the Russian Federation) group is that comprising regions "with a low level of development". And the dynamics of changes in the composition of this group is estimated as "insignificant".
And the last, fifth, group "with extremely low level of development" according to the authors of various typologies and regional forecasts, includes about 10 regions. At the same time, it is often noted that "the group has a stable core of 8 regions," and that all these regions "require more active state support and that the assistance measures provided through the federal programs are insufficient to solve the accumulated problems."
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the typology of regions should not be confused with the ratings of the same regions related to the effectiveness of regional governments. Regular determination of such ratings primarily depends on the subjective factor and the place of regions in this rating often changes radically.. As for the type of region, the place of the region in a particular group changes very rarely, as here the dependence on the effectiveness of the regional government (subjective factor) is much less significant.
At the same time, the results of studies related to the typology of Russian regions can help to more accurately determine the parameters of the state long-term planning and regional development in the Russian Federation.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC LIST:
1. Gaiduk V.V., Demyanenko Yu.A. Regional interests and problems of political decentralization // Issues of politology. – 2013. – № 2.
2. Goncharov P.K. Crimea is Russian: new accents in the system of arguments // Issues of politology. – 2016. – № 2.
3. Drobizheva L.M. On the strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation // Issues of national and federal relations. – 2013. – № 2.
4. Ivanchenko L.A. Priorities of regional economy. – М., 1998.
5. Irkhin Yu.V. Neoinstitutional paradigm: possibilities and limits for political analysis and design // Issues of politology. – 2013. – № 3.
6. Karaje T.V. Political space/ time: the content of concepts // Issues of politology. – 2012. – № 2.
7. Kosikov I.G. National-state policy of Russia in the North Caucasus // Issues of national and federal relations. – 2012. – № 4.
8. Medvedev N.P. Political regionalism. Textbook. – М., 2005.
9. Medvedev V.N. Prospects of modernization of public administration in modern Russia // Issues of politology. – 2011. – № 1.
10. Medvedev V.N. Some aspects of public administration reform in Russia: state and prospects // Regional and municipal governance: political, economic and legal issues. – 2015. – № 1-2.
11. Meshcheryakova O.M. Multi-party system and the order of replacement of the highest official of the subject of the Russian Federation (some questions of the theory and practice) // Issues of politology. – 2012. – № 3.
12. Mikhailov V.A., Mikhailova N.V. Formation and development of autonomy in Soviet Russia and its forms // Issues of national and federal relations. – 2012. – № 2.
13. Nigmatullina T.A. Politicization of ethnicity in the context of regional federalism // Issues of national and federal relations. – 2016. – № 3.
14. Nisnevichy Yu.A. What is democracy? // Issues of politology. – 2012. – № 1.
15. Peregudov S.P., Lapina N.Yu., Semenenko I.S. Interest Groups and the Russian State. – М., 1999.
16. Seliverstov V.E., Bandman M.K., Guzner S.S. Methodological bases of development of the Federal program of the help to depressed and backward regions. Theoretical problems of Economics // Economics and sociology. – 1996. – № 1.
17. Suleymanova Sh.S. Intern-ethnic issues of modern Russia // Issues of national and federal relations. – 2012. – № 1.
MEDVEDEV N.P. Effectiveness of Political Decisions: Consensual and Representative Models
N.P. MEDVEDEV Doctor of Sciences (political sciences), Professor, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
EFFECTIVENESS OF POLITICAL DECISIONS: CONSENSUAL AND REPRESENTATIVE MODELS
The article reveals the scientific basis and features of the theory and political practice in various models of public decision-making. The advantages of the consensual model over the representative one in decision-making in the process of settlement of political and ethno-political conflicts are emphasized.
Key words: political solution, conflict settlement, representative model, consensual model, political conflicts, ethno-political conflicts.
The problem of applying consensual procedures in strategic public decision-making is particularly relevant for societies with transitional democracy and fragile institutions of the political system. It should be recognized that such is the political status of the majority of the post-Soviet states today.
For example, the system of political decision-making functioning in Russia, as well as the electoral system are a kind of a mixed system based on the alternation of majority one-stage and proportional systems. Such systems operate in many countries of the world. But, in recent years, scientists and experts recognize that it has such obvious shortcomings that for a long time both here and abroad, and in theory and in practice, there is a search for both the principles of its possible improvement and more democratic systems in order to achieve effective solutions and ensure political stability.
By the way, proportional systems operating, for example, in Italy, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and other countries have great advantages. However, in the conditions of the multiparty system in our country and the existing Russian experience of the State Duma party lists elections (2007-2016), it is unlikely that a widespread transition to the system of party list elections is realistic again in the future.
In addition (and most importantly), this system, suitable for organizing and holding elections, cannot be used in the conditions of the Russian system of power as a universal tool for making strategically important state decisions. The shortcomings of the current mixed system of political decision-making are determined by factors of objective and subjective character. It is no secret that at this stage the Russian society is characterized by the processes of polarization of interests and the resulting goals affecting broad starta of the population, which is confirmed by the results of numerous sociological studies. The reflection of these objectively occurring processes is the confrontation of socio-political forces acting as the exponents of a certain system of group, cultural, ethnic, regional and other interests.
Since the deputies of the Federal Assembly of Russia included representatives of various socio-political forces and trends, the model of public confrontation was inevitably reproduced by the activity of the legislative bodies.
However, the existing rules and procedures set out in various normative acts practically do not contain mechanisms aimed at removing social tension in society by adopting such legislative acts that would fully take into account the whole range of public interests in Russia. It is no coincidence that at the end of the 90-ies of the last century many political associations their attempt to ensure political stability in the country along with parliamentary activities concluded Public Accord Agreement.
The mechanism of representative voting on the draft political decisions submitted for discussion in these parliamentary rules of the Russian Federation is based on the concept of the representative system of power, that is, the division into majority and minority, which in the conditions of social destabilization, as a rule, becomes an additional factor of political discord and a source of political conflict.
That is why in modern conditions of our social development the most democratic and effective system of strategic government decision-making could be a system of consensual decisions.
Political consensus is not only a new voting system, but also a new approach to solving social and state problems. It should be considered as a universal democratic principle, objectively determined by the needs of modern public consciousness in the free development of all forms of political activity and in their harmonious interaction in solving both domestic and international problems.
Consensus opinion is a median opinion. Just as there is an average age and average growth, there is also a centre of public opinion that can be identified through harmonization. The level of consensus indicates the extent to which this particular proposal is agreed upon, i.e. is close to a common view. The centre of public opinion is characterized by the fact that no one opposes it; it is a point of general agreement. Further on, the interests of the parties diverge. At the same time, if the method of decision-making becomes the method of coordination in the society, the level of consensus will tend to increase.
Centrist policy shows an increasing interdependence of forces operating in the society. Neglect of the needs of certain social groups inevitably leads to a disharmony within the society and a loss of support by the government from the the majority of the population. From the legal point of view, consensus as a common will creates preconditions for the formation of the realistic law.
The mechanism for identifying opinions should be based on a classification system. When discussing, for example, a draft law, all expressed opinions are classified into equal blocks of opinions with the condition that each expressed opinion will be taken into account and included in a certain block.
The method of decision-making is a consensus vote, which involves the presence of several proposals on specific provisions of the bill or other decision and is carried out by taking into account the preferences expressed. If several very different proposals were made in the course of the discussion, then the analysis of the results should be based on those proposals that have received a high level of consensus and do not contradict the principle idea of the project and can be included in the final decision.
It should be noted that the same is true for the procedure of election of deputies of representative and legislative bodies both at the level of the Russian Parliament and at the level of the subjects of the Russian Federation. If voters had the opportunity to put their preferences on the ballot, the results would be clearer and fairer. Therefore, a change of the voting procedure and rules of tabulation in this system would exclude the concept of "failed elections" or repeat voting. But, most importantly, through this procedure, it would be possible to better take into account the opinion of socio-political minorities at the stage of formation of power.
A significantly new approach to the introduction of the principle of consensus in public policy is the formation of the modern concept of political and legal culture aimed at finding a compromise acceptable to all subjects of the conflict situation. In this case, a search for the mutually acceptable solution to a controversial issue should be based on common sense, according to which it is much more difficult to agree or straightforwardly bring together positions declared by the disputing parties, than to analyze the hidden fundamental interests of the parties behind these positions and to find the basis for an agreement in the area that does not intersect the line of confrontational positions. The developed procedural mechanism acts as a tool for the removal of fruitless confrontation and political conflicts.
The principle of consensus is of particular importance for the resolution of ethno-political conflicts, given the fact that many frozen and unresolved conflicts remain in the post-Soviet space and in the world as a whole.
The importance of consensus is determined by the fact that as a rule, it assist in the developing of mechanisms for resolving contradictions both through a system of conventional representative democracy based on the priority of civil rights and on the basis of democracy of consent, i.e. the principles of equitable consideration of collective interests, especially the interests of small groups that preserve and defend their specificity and distinctiveness. At the same time, it is always based on the general democratic principles and human rights, completed by a system of special measures, special programs, in other words, the policy of pluralism and cultural autonomy, and in some cases by the representation of regional or community self-government, and in some cases, by political autonomy.
Few years ago, it was possible to say that interethnic relations are developing under the influence of socio-economic factors, at the moment, the ethno-national factor often becomes the determining factor. In these conditions, the lack of a clear theoretical concept or a program for the development of interethnic relations can aggravate the crisis and lead to an unmanageable conflict in any society. The lack of theory and unpreparedness of public authorities to the analysis of interethnic relations and their management can lead to an unpredicted development of ethno-national relations. Whereas development of mechanisms of consent and negotiation process create prerequisites for the constructive resolution of contradictions arising in the process of development and interaction of ethnic communities.
One more consideration on the importance of a constructive negotiation process. It should be borne in mind that ethno-political conflicts can be used as a political tool. They are often used as a means of power struggle. The opposition often resortes to them in its political struggle. Its tactics are simple: either provoke an escalation of armed clashes and then in an extreme psychological situation try to seize power, or by peaceful means, proving in Parliament the inability of the current government to effectively protect national interests, or by military means, carrying out a coup in the conditions of paralysis of power and mass discontent of the population caused or aggravated by its own actions. The latest events of the beginning of the XXI century in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine are vivid evidence of the political implementation of these scenarios of social development.
In the context of another political scenario, the conflict can be used as a means of retaining power. Sometimes it is necessary to ignite inter-ethnic passions in order to cool domestic politics, such tactic is used by functionaries who seek to deflect the discontent of the population in the event of a sharp deterioration of socio – economic and political conditions, or in connection with a significant increase in the influence of the political opposition.
Finally, the conflict can be an instrument of geopolitical hegemony. To ignite conflicts in a neighbouring region in order to weaken it and then to punish or annex a part of the territory or simply to keep in political reins is an old tactic of many superpowers.
In a number of cases, negotiations between the parties to ethno-political conflicts have proved fruitless. There are many reasons why the negotiations may fail, but it does not mean that they cease to be an effective tool in the settlement of ethnopolitical conflicts. Another thing is that this tool is often used clumsily, without creating the appropriate prerequisites.
There is no doubt that, based on the principle of the legitimacy of the government, ethno-political conflicts will have to be resolved mainly through negotiations and compromises in the foreseeable future. In other words, this will be due to the apparent heterogeneity of political regimes in different countries. A necessary cooperation between the parties to the conflict on the basis of normative material, including provisions of the international law. Given the great diversity in the relations between the international centres, as well as the internal instability, it is natural to focus in real politics on multilateral and bilateral negotiations involving the main forces and centres of power in the political process. Such a policy requires a legal framework for political interaction at all levels.
The problem of complete elimination of ethno-political conflicts can hardly be raised. Therefore, the priority is to make conflicts manageable and to put them into constitutional and legislative framework. This will help to reduce aggressiveness, to prevent open clashes and human casualties and to resolve all disputes on the basis of the principles of legality and consensus. Only on this basis can we build a system of specific mechanisms for resolving ethnic and political conflicts.
Such mechanism can be primarily reached through an inter-ethnic harmony under the influence of economic infrastructure ensuring equal conditions for all citizens, regardless of their nationality.
Next step is creation of a cultural infrastructure of interethnic harmony. This mechanism involves regular organization and implementation of a series of activities aimed at creating favorable conditions for the activities of national and cultural autonomies and societies, formation of customs and traditions, etc.
The mechanism of humanization of interethnic relations, including both strict observance of the rule of law and wide involvement of the public in the promotion of non-violent methods of solution of interethnic conflicts, is of great importance. It is important to encourage allocation of a part of means of various humanitarian funds for the assistance to refugees, as well as other charitable purposes.
Finally, the forecasting of international conflicts, identification of tension indicators in interethnic relations, identification of both areas of conflict and areas of consensus is of major importance. The implementation of this mechanism makes it possible to organically combine the activities of various socio-prognostic and information research centers with the practical activities of government authorities.
The legal basis of national relations is of crucial importance for the development of the principle of political consensus. First of all, we are talking about the formation of a detailed concept, a full-fledged theory of state-building and national policy for the future. The decisions made by the President of the Russian Federation on the strategy of national state policy for the period up to 2025 or other periods are clearly insufficient and are declarative in their charatcer.
Ensuring the regulatory framework for the stabilization of interethnic relations is of fundamental importance, since the existing framework is extremely imperfect and has a predominantly declarative, political character. In the process of improving the regulatory framework it is necessary to take into account, first of all, international acts: the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenantion on civil and political rights, the Helsinki Final Act and other documents of the Conference on security and cooperation in Europe, etc.
In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize once againthe the fundamental difference between the procedure of political decision-making in consensual and representative models. The adoption of laws by a majority vote of deputies or other representative assemblies in any case bypasses or does not take into account the views of various minorities, which often leads to erroneous or ineffective decisions. In order to solve the problem of taking into account the views of all interested parties, consensus procedures should be treated more carefully at all stages of political decision-making.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC LIST:
1. Dmitriev A.V. Ethnic conflict: theory and practice. – М., 1998.
2. The drama of Russian law. Tikhomirov Y.A., Kazimirchuk V.P., Medvedev N.P., Livshits R.Z., Cheharina V.I., Varlamova N.V., Lapaeva V.V., Gavrilov O.A., Smirnov V.V., Institute of state and law of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – Ser.: Conflict of law and society. – Moscow, 1996.
3. Zhiltsov S.S. Resources of the Northern Caspian and Russian policy // Central Asia and the Caucasus. – 2003. – № 6.
4. Kirabaev N.S. Muslim civilization: challenges of globalization // Svobodnaya mysl. – 2007. – № 11.
5. Koser L. Functions of social conflicts. – М., 2000.
6. Medvedev N.P. Political consensus: theory and practice. 2nd edition-revised and supplemented). – М., 1999.
7. Medvedev N.P., Bekbosynov M.B., Gaiduk V.V. Ethnopolitical and regional studies: Russian and international dimension. – М., 2016.
8. Medvedev N.P. Political consensus: once again on the essence of the concept // Issues of politology. – 2018. – № 2.
9. Medvedev N.P. Political crises and conflicts: theory and practice. Monograph. – М., 2017.
10. Pyzh V.V., Frolov A.E. Political security of the state and political stability of society as an object of political analysis // Issues of politology. – 2018. – № 3.
PYZH V.V., FROLOV A.E. Political Security of the State and Political Stability of the Society as an Object of Political Analysis
V.V. PYZH Doctor of sciences (political sciences), Professor at the Chair of social sciences and humanities, FSBEI NSU named after P. F. Lesgaft, Expert of the Defense and security commission of the Inter-parliamentary Assembly of CIS member-states, St. Petersburg, Russia
A.E. FROLOV Candidate of sciences (philosophy), associate Professor at MPO VUNTS "Naval Academy named after N. G. Kuznetsov, St. Petersburg, Russia
POLITICAL SECURITY OF THE STATE AND POLITICAL STABILITY OF THE SOCIETY AS AN OBJECT OF POLITICAL ANALYSIS
The article reveals the content of the concept of security as the basic need of the individuals and society. It examines the main components of the national security: political security of the state and political stability of society, as well as ways to ensure them in modern conditions.
Key words: national security, political security of the state, political stability of society, vital interests of the individual, society and state.
The changes taking place in the world at the end of the XX and the beginning of the XXI centuries gave rise to a number of new problems for the world community and Russia as one of its influential members. One of these urgent problems is to ensure the national security of the state in modern conditions. Despite the large number of studies on national security issues, there are still issues that have not been studied well enough, among them the issues of tools and technologies ensuring national security strategy and their structural and functional components in modern conditions, their understanding from such theoretical and methodological positions that would provide the widest possible vision of the relevant issues.
It should be noted that the term "national security" has appeared in the scientific literature relatively recently. It is believed that this term was first used in the Message of USA President Theodore Roosevelt to Congress in 1904, where he justified the seizure of the Panama Canal zone in the interests of "national security" of the United States. The concept itself appeared in connection with the 1947 Act (law) on national security, on the basis of which the US National Security Council was set up. During the cold war, the majority of politicians and researchers determined national security through force or from the position of interaction among the countries, i.e. creation of optimal conditions for the development of the international relations. The best known is the theory of power politics (G. Morgenthau, A. Wolfers and others).
There existed different opinion on the concept of "national security" in the Soviet literature until the 80s. Thus, the "Soviet Military Encyclopedia" (1978) stated: "the term "national security" was introduced by bourgeois ideologists who try to pass off the interests of the exploitative class protected by the bourgeois state as national ones and thus obscure the true nature and direction of their activities in the field of state security."
Therefore, in our country, many scientists and policy-makers when considering the security problems used the concepts of "defense" and other similar terms.
National security includes a wide range of issues that require both theoretical research and practical solutions. These include the study of components of national security such as political security of the state and political stability of the society. Political security and political stability are the main link and basis of national security.
This is due to the fact that it is in the political sphere that there are phenomena and processes that determine and characterize the stability of the political system of the state, the ability of its political system to maintain civil peace and harmony in the country, without which it is impossible to ensure the security of the individual, society and the state.
The scientific approach to the study of any phenomenon involves the elucidation of its essential features. It should be noted that in the official documents, considering the actual problems of national security and its provision, there is no definition of the concepts of "political security" or "political stability" and their criteria are not defined.
Thus, the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (2009, 2015) states that the main priorities of the national security of the Russian Federation are national defense, state and public security, while the definitions of these concepts are not given. The strategic goals of national security in the sphere of state and public security are defined.
These are the protection of the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the man and citizen, protection of the sovereignty of the state, its independence and territorial integrity, as well as the preservation of civil peace and social stability in the society.
That is, state and public security are quite broad concepts, including a number of other components (economic, military, information, environmental, social and other types of security).
A number of official documents define these components, among them are: the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (2000, 2010, 2014) which defines "military security", reveals threats and military dangers both external and internal, defines the goals and objectives of the military policy aimed at ensuring military security.
The Doctrine of the Information Security of the Russian Federation (2016) reveals the concept of the "information security," identifies threats to the national interests of the country in the information sphere, defines the system of information security and social stability.
The law of the Russian Federation "On security" (1992, 2010) speaks in general about the security, defining it as the preservation of the constitutional system and social stability of the society, defense of the democratic values and democracy. One of the latest Russian documents in the field of national security "Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Activities for the Period up to 2030" (2017) describes goals, objectives and directions of state policy in the field of state and public security.
However, no scientific definitions of such concepts as "public security" or "public safety" are given in that document. The criteria for defining them are not described.
It should be noted that the definition of the concept of "political security" and the allocation of its criteria cannot be found in either political, philosophy or sociological dictionaries. However, in scientific researches the concept and essence of political security received some coverage. At the same time, there may be different approaches to the definition of the concept of "political security" and its various criteria.
Thus, according to Professor V. V. Serebryannikov, political security is a set of measures to identify, prevent and eliminate those factors that can harm the political interests of the country, its people, society, citizens, cause political regression and even political death of the state, as well as turn power and policy from a consciously constructive into a destructive force, a source of troubles and misfortunes for the country and its people.
Other authors, in our opinion, view political security too narrowly and simplistically, reducing its understanding to nonviolence for political reasons, as a protection of the political system of the society from the destructive and destabilizing internal and external influences, as a feature of the political system, manifested in its stability, its ability to maintain its essential characteristics, in the absence of contradictions in the development and functioning of the political system.
In some sources we can find the definition of "political security." It is understood as a stable state of protection of the individuals, the society and the state from internal and external political threats.
The authors of the textbook "Military political science" write: "Political security means a state of the political system providing a balance of interests of the main groups of the population, socio-political stability and integrity of society, favorable international position of the state, coordination of security policies in various spheres of society."
Each of such interpretations deserves attention and the right to exist, but, in our opinion, they somewhat narrow the concept of political security.
From the political point of view, we believe that in the theoretical aspect it is more correct to talk about political security as a state of implementation and protection of vital political, economic and social rights and interests of the individual, ensuring stability of the political system and civil society, the political system of the state, the trust of the population in the system of power, its political and economic course, the ability of the government to solve urgent problems of the individual, society and the state.
Thus, political security is a state of the political system that guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens and social groups and provides a balance of interests, stability of the society and integrity of the state.
Considering the political security of the state, it should be noted that it largely depends on the political stability of the society. Political stability is an integral feature and precondition of political security.
It presupposes such a stable state between the institutions of the society, objects and subjects of politics and power, when they do not represent mutual threats to each other, receive mutual benefits, are interested in preserving the integrity of the state and the society and their further progressive development. Some legal bases of political stability of the society are defined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It refers to the system of equality of human rights and freedoms and their protection by the state. Everyone is guaranteed freedom of thought, speech, movement, the right to form and participate in public associations, rallies and demonstrations.
Freedom of activity of public associations is guaranteed. The Constitution defines and enshrines the rights and duties of the subjects of power in the field of national security and political stability. The country has created legal and organizational prerequisites for ensuring political stability.
In political studies we can find a number of definitions of the concept of "political stability", such as:
– the ability of the political system to function and survive for a long time without drastic changes;
– type of social stability, the state of the political sphere of the society, in which there is a certain order of political relations;
– the state of the political system, characterized by the presence of conditions and factors that ensure the preservation of society's identity, civil peace and harmony on the basis of achieving a balance of interests of various social actors of political forces, power and of the people, timely resolution of emerging problems and contradictions through the mechanisms and means provided by law.
Politological encyclopaedic dictionary defines political stability as a system of relations between different political actors, which is characterized by a certain integrity and ability to effectively implement its functions.
The main subjects of internal political stability are the state and political cells of society, which have an impact on each other and mutual influence.
The concepts of political security and political stability are similar in content.
If the essence of political security is to ensure the independence and territorial integrity of the state, the ability and ability of the nation to resolve issues of government, to conduct an independent domestic and foreign policy in the interests of the individual and society, the political stability implies a stable state of the political system, the successful functioning of all the institutions existing in it, ensuring social harmony and the progressive development of society.
Political stability is based on the relative agreement of the main social and political forces on the goals and methods of social development, the solution of emerging contradictions without civil conflicts and wars, which is a condition and factor of ensuring the political security of the state. There are certain general criteria of political security of the state and of political stability. These, above all, should include:
– the stability of the constitutional system in the country, the effectiveness of the institutions of power, its ability to control and direct political processes, to seek the support of the population regarding political and economic policy, domestic and foreign policy;
– efficiency of the state policy ensuring improvement of living standards of the population, real observance and ensuring civil rights and political freedoms;
– social unity of society on the basis of national ideas, goals and objectives;
– economic and military power of the state, ensuring the high international status of the country;
– effective struggle of the state, society, people, power system against crime, corruption, etc.;
– existence of effective and developed political institutions ensuring the formation and functioning of civil society;
– equality of all state bodies, the system of power, the people before the law and its strict implementation, etc.
There are three levels of political stability.
The first level is the stability of the constitutional system of the state, the political regime, the political system of society, the evolution of the nature of political changes in a democratic society.
The second level is the stability of political and state power (the relative duration and immutability of the main composition-the representatives of the ruling political party), for which the voters mainly cast their votes.
The third level is the stability of society, the unity of nations, the preservation of the territorial integrity of the state, the security of citizens and respect for their political and social rights and freedoms.
Based on this, it can be concluded that the political security and political stability of the state and society covers a variety of factors of interaction between people, society, the state, the sphere of inter-state relations.
Therefore, it is possible to consider the external and internal aspects of political security and political stability, which can be exposed to a diverse range of dangers and threats of economic, political, military, social nature, formed as a result of objective and subjective reasons.
The objective reasons for the emergence and action of social dangers in the political sphere include:
– the contradictory nature of the political structure of a multinational society, the activities of its political institutions, including the state, when political forces can choose both progressive, humanistic, democratic and reactionary, anti-democratic orientation of socio-political and economic development of society and the state in order to realize their interests;
– unfair distribution of property, destructive activity of the authorities in the course of socio-economic and political reforms, which can lead to the impoverishment of the people, infringement of their social, economic and political rights and freedoms;
– the activities of the media, which preach different ideologies, different moral values forming the sense of nationalism, aggressiveness, hostility and intolerance;
– activities of separatist, nationalist and religious extremist groups directly or indirectly supported from abroad aimed at undermining the constitutional order of the state;
– criminalization, corruption of public relations and so on.
The subjective factors that threaten the political security and political stability of the state and society include:
– an increase in the number of citizens who are not satisfied with their social status, thus pushed to participate in social protests in the form of opposition, participation in rallies, demonstrations and anti-government activities;
– the absence in the country of a national idea and state ideology aimed at the spiritual revival of society, the formation of harmonious interethnic relations, love for the country and a sense of pride for it, the population's trust in the political and economic course of development of the country conducted by the government;
– the corruption of the system of power, its isolation from the people, incompetence in making decisions that contradict the interests of the majority of the country's population and contribute to the formation of the opposition.
Opposition is the product of the unequal position of individuals in the society, it is objectively generated by the existing inequality in the social life of people whose actions, goals and the existing means of changing their position put them in the opposition to the society and the political system of the state in which they live.
From the political point of view, considering the external and internal sides of threats to political security and political stability, it should be noted that external threats to political security and political stability are a direct opportunity to initiate internal political and economic crises within the state.
As noted in the Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation (2016), the threat to stability in Russia is the assistance provided by a number of foreign states to separatist, nationalist, religious extremist groups, conducting hostile actions aimed at destroying the spiritual unity of the people, creating, equipping, providing training for terrorist organizations that carry out their activities to undermine social stability in the country.
We are witnessing many examples of the destruction of the countries’ political system, of the changes in the legitimate political and state power and changes in the political systems generated by the weakness of the governments with the influence of the reactionary opposition, with the support by the United States and Western countries, whose activities are aimed at the implementation of the doctrine of controlled chaos, the essence of which is to cause dissatisfaction in a certain part of the population with the government policy and the country’s political system.
Thus, for the first time in the world, such powerful nuclear country as the USSR was destroyed not as a result of military actions, but through ideological influence on the population of its republics, through the betrayal of the country’s political leadership, through the actions of the Western-oriented opposition supported by foreign states, primarily the United States.
And today, as stated in the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (2016), the practice of overthrowing legitimate political regimes, provoking internal instability and conflicts is becoming more widespread in the world.
To prevent threats to national security Russia focuses on strengthening the internal unity of Russian society, ensuring political and social stability, interethnic and religious harmony, mutual respect of peoples, eliminating structural imbalances in the economy and social sphere, and improving the country's defense capability.
The internal threat to the political security of the state and political society can be seen as a direct possibility of a political crisis in the country caused by a number of factors. As we noted above, the main subject of national security is the institutions of the state and, first of all, the bodies of state power.
Reducing the level of trust in the government is one of the threats to the political stability of society. Today in Russia there is a crisis of trust on the part of the population, especially to local and regional authorities. Only by strengthening the institution of public confidence in the government is it possible to form a real mechanism of interaction between the society and the state, to ensure social and political stability. The welfare of the people is important for the security of the state and the stability of society. If current trends continue, the income inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 20% may rise by 2020, which already threatens social cataclysms. The problem of social disparities has always existed. But it is necessary to set the task of overcoming the income gap of the different groups. It is very important that this gap be narrowed, and that the poverty not embitter the people and not push them to social protests.
As Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia rightly noted: "The stability of society and public justice depend primarily on the overcoming of this gap. The greater is the gap, the greater is the destabilization in the society, the greater is the negative energy, the more people reject everything that is taking place in the society, in the country, more criticism is there. Therefore, this topic has political, social and spiritual dimensions, and it is, of course, a challenge for the authorities."
Currently, special attention is paid to the elimination of the causes and conditions that give rise to corruption, which is an obstacle to the sustainable political and social stability of society. With this purpose the National strategy of counteraction to corruption and national anti-corruption plans are being implemented. The atmosphere of unacceptability of this phenomenon is formed in the society and the level of responsibility for the corrupt actions has been increased. A special place in the system of ensuring political security and political stability is held by the forecasts of future development of the domestic political situation in the country.
It is designed to solve a two-fold problem: on the one hand, to give an objective scientifically based picture of the political situation in the country, to identify long-term sustainable trends in its development, based on today's processes taking place in the world and the country. And on the other hand its aim is to choose promising areas of activity so that the authorities could ensure political security and political stability of society.
The forecast of the domestic political and international situation is the most important tool ensuring the implementation of tasks aimed at the national security of the state. There is still a number of important problems, the solution of which will ensure the political security of the state and the political stability of society as an important factor and condition of national security.
Some theoretical aspects of political analysis of political security and political stability of the state and society, considered above, allow us to conclude that in modern conditions there are certain political threats to national security of Russia. Therefore, today Russia is implementing a mechanism to ensure political security, first of all, it is a purposeful political influence of public authorities and management on the political processes, relations, factors and conditions for the realization of vital interests of social groups in the general system of national security and the formation on this basis of the ability of the individual, society and the state to exist and develop under the influence of threats and dangers.
Political stability is an integral part, the main link and the basis of political security of the state. It assumes a conflict-free state of society, which is characterized by a certain degree of integrity and the ability to effectively implement its functions. Ensuring political security and political stability of Russia is an objective regularity of its development in modern conditions, the key to progress in the future.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC LIST:
1. Areev S.I. Political security of the Russian Federation in modern conditions. – М., 2008.
2. Military political science. Textbook. – М.: Krasnaya Zvezda, 2006.
3. Gaiduk V.V., Demyanenko Yu.A. Ethnopolitical instruments of national security of the Russian Federation // Issues of national and federal relations. – 2013. – № 3.
4. Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – Dec. 6, 2016.
5. Law of the Russian Federation "On Security." – М., 2010.
6. Kononovich I.A., Frolov A.E., Shatravin S.A. National security of Russia and the ways to ensure it in modern conditions. – SPb: VUNTs VMF VMA, 2010.
7. Love and freedom // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – Jan. 9, 2018.
8. Medvedev N.P. Stability of the political system: theory and Russian practice // Bulletin of Ryazan State University named after S. A. Esenin. – 2007. – № 4 (17).
9. Muravykh А.I. The new paradigm of national security and socio-economic development of Russia // Eurasian Union: issues of international relations. – 2017. – № 1.
10. Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities until 2030 // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – July 21, 2017.
11. Petrov A. What are the threats of social stratification // Argumenty I Facty. – 2017. – № 8.
12. Politology. Encyclopaedic dictionary. – М., 1993.
13. Radikov I.V. Political problems of national security and management of military personnel. – SPb.: WATT, 2008. – Рart. 1.
14. Serebryannikov V.V. Political security // Svobodnaya mysl. – 1997. – № 1.
15. Soviet military encyclopedia. – M.: Voenizdat, 1978. – Т. 5.
16. National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – Jan. 2, 2016.
17. Suleymanov A.R. National and territorial security of the Russian state: history and today // Issues of national and federative relations. – 2013. – № 3.