Socio-political stability of regions and the events that determine it. Conditions and factors of political stability

home

Video recorders

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

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

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 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.

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

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

The degree of political order is also influenced by the dynamics social interests different levels of community and ways to ensure their interaction. It is important here not only to take into account the specificity, autonomy of interests, and multiple orientations of activity, but also to understand their compatibility. In society there must be areas of coordination of interests and positions, uniform rules of behavior that would be accepted by all participants political process like order. The formation of a political order occurs on the basis of the presence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

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

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

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

There are absolute, static and dynamic political stability.

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

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

The current state of the social environment is characterized by a new dynamic level of political stability. It was developed by “open” societies that have learned the mechanism of renewal and consider socio-economic and political changes within the existing socio-political environment as a stabilizing factor. They are able to perceive and assimilate internal and external impulses that transform them, and organically incorporate into the democratic process mechanisms not only for preventing, but also for using conflicts to maintain the stability of the political system.

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

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

One of the main prerequisites for political stability can be considered economic stability and growth in well-being. Close relationship between economic efficiency and political stability is obvious: the socio-economic factor influences the place and distribution of political power in society and determines the political order. It is known that economic crises, declines in production, and deterioration in the standard of living of the population often led to the destruction of the political system. Experience of changes in Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe showed that the strength of dictatorial regimes ultimately depended on the success of their economic system. Economic weakness and inefficiency inevitably lead to political collapse. Sufficiently high rates of economic growth and the absence of pronounced disproportions in income distribution are also important.

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

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

The basis of political stability is a strict separation of powers, the presence of checks and balances in the functioning of various branches of government. A large flow of “filters” - interest groups, pressure groups, parties, parliamentary commissions and committees can reduce quantitative and qualitative overload of the political system to a minimum. Reducing the social space for direct, immediate forms of pressure (participation in the activities of the executive branch, multi-stage, articulation and aggregation of interests can maintain political order and political stability.

The main subjects of internal political stability are the state and political cells of society. Moreover, depending on the activity they show, they can also act as objects of the political process. There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization,

Mobilization stability arises in social structures where development is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize a goal for a 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 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 capable of ensuring a breakthrough for society during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the 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 their status allows them to maintain their social positions. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general period6 or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of any specific social and political subjects, it arises in society when development begins “from below” by all the structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of power and society emerges, which is necessary for the “conduct of deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensures the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly through 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 by civilization in other ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief that the country is prosperous in comparison with others is cultivated, and 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 is open, there is a possibility of balancing between the growth of the extraction, regulatory function and response to the attitude of society towards public policy. The political system, without pretending to be the main subject of social changes, is designed to support existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems becomes a stable tradition and a civilizational value.

The dissatisfaction of the masses with the policies of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis, destabilizing society as a whole and its subsystems. It is the contradiction between the government and society that is the equal cause of the instability of society.

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

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

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be considered as a problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification, determined by internal and external incentives.

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

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

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

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

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

The classification of political risk is carried out on the basis of the division of events caused either by the actions of government agencies in the course of carrying out certain public policies, or by forces beyond the control of the government. In accordance with this principle, the American researcher Charles Kennedy proposed dividing political risk into extra-legal and legal-governmental (Table 12).

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

Legal-government risk is a direct consequence of the current political process and includes events such as democratic elections leading to a new government and changes in legislation affecting the part where we're talking about about trade, labor, joint ventures, monetary policy.

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

The degree of ethnic and religious differences,

Social inequality in income distribution,

Degree of political pluralism,

The influence of the radical left

The role of coercion in maintaining power,

The scale of unconstitutional actions,

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

The classification proposed by American scientists J. de la Torre and D. Neckar identifies internal and external sources of political and economic risk factors (Table 13).

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

It should be noted that the analysis of political risk in Russia has some specifics.

First, political traditions, imperfections of democratic institutions and the turning point historical development determined the significant role of the personal factor, which requires additional attention when assessing political risk.

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

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

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

Political stability is the ability of a political body to self-preserve in conditions that threaten the existence of the social system.

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

In democratic countries, the main factor of stability is the presence of constitutional order. However great importance in its strengthening, development and dynamics are given. Political scientists define stability using the formula “order plus continuity”: no matter what changes a democratic society undergoes, and it is always characterized by high dynamism, the organization of power over a long period of time must maintain its main institutions and properties unchanged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main social forces advocating for the strengthening of political order are (in increasing order): public opinion in general, social activists, candidates for elected positions, members of parliament.

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

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

Some experts, in particular the German political scientist E. Zimmermann, understand political stability as the functioning of one government for an extended period of time, which, accordingly, assumes its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities. Government stability then appears as the ability of political administrators to govern increasingly effectively as their time in office increases. He identifies several patterns associated with achieving this kind of stability:

The length of time a government remains in power is inversely proportional to the number of parties in parliament and directly proportional to the number of seats occupied by pro-government parties;

A one-party government has a better chance of staying in power than a coalition government;

The presence of factions within a government reduces its chances of remaining in power;

The greater the fragmentation of forces in parliament (including the opposition), the more likely the integrity of the government is;

The more seats opposition and anti-system forces have in parliament, the less likely the government will be to survive for long.

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

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

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

The idea of balance of power is dynamic in nature. It speaks of the stability of those parts or elements that are mobile and changeable. Stability between strictly fixed elements is expressed by other concepts, for example, “monopoly of the dominant party,” “order through repression and suppression,” “unanimity in society,” etc.

Under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, any manifestations of instability, in particular freethinking, political threats, citizen discontent, deep splits in society, i.e. cultural, ideological and socio-economic conflicts, are harshly suppressed. However, undemonstrated or unexpressed political discontent gradually accumulates, hides underground and breaks out with redoubled force and aggression. The experience of the tsarist autocracy and the Bolshevik rule, which represented authoritarian types of regime, testifies to this.

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

The result of political disappointment of the population is usually decreased trust in political leaders and institutions of power. It is known that in transforming societies, and Russia is one of them, there is a growing mass distrust of citizens towards political parties and civil institutions in general. More than 2/3 of those surveyed in December 1998 did not trust virtually any institution. Two significant trends are emerging: general political apathy and withdrawal from political life, on the one hand, and the increased ability of political parties to attract citizens to their side through undemocratic methods, on the other.

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

Among the factors of political instability, scientists sometimes include the insufficient capabilities of the political elite, as well as the predominance of “narrow” and personalized parties. Both signs were present on the Russian political scene in the 90s. The weakness of the political elite was manifested in the fact that it was not it, but the entourage of the President of the country, often referred to as the “family”, who appointed the highest officials in the state and reshuffled the government. Many well-known parties in Russia were personified because the departure of their leader from the political scene could actually lead to their collapse. When the LDPR failed to register for the State Duma elections in October 1999, it transformed into Zhirinovsky’s party. The new name more accurately expressed the essence of this political association: it was a party of one person.

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

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

SECTION 4. FORMATION OF HUMAN PERSONALITY

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

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

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

Conditions and factors of political stability

political stability social system

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.

The main thing in political stability is to ensure the stability of political relations, which is manifested in legitimacy, certainty, efficiency of the activities of power structures, the constancy of the norms of values of political culture, the familiarity of types of behavior. It is known that the greatest successes were achieved by those societies that traditionally focused on the values of order. And on the contrary, the absolutization of the value of change in society led to the fact that the resolution of problems and conflicts was achieved at a high price. In order for development and orderliness to coexist, consistency, consistency, phasing of changes and, at the same time, a realistic program capable of connecting goals with means - resources and conditions are necessary.

The degree of political order is also influenced by the dynamics of social interests of different levels of community and the ways of ensuring their interaction. It is important here not only to take into account the specificity, autonomy of interests, and multiple orientations of activity, but also to understand their compatibility. In society there must be zones of coordination of interests and positions, common rules of behavior that would be accepted by all participants in the political process as order. The formation of a political order occurs on the basis of the presence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

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

There are absolute, static and dynamic political stability.

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

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

They are able to perceive and assimilate internal and external impulses that transform them, and organically incorporate into the democratic process mechanisms not only for preventing, but also for using conflicts to maintain the stability of the political system.

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

One of the main prerequisites for political stability can be considered economic stability and growth in well-being. The close relationship between economic efficiency and political stability is obvious: the socio-economic factor influences the place and distribution of political power in society and determines the political order. It is known that economic crises, declines in production, and deterioration in the standard of living of the population often led to the destruction of the political system. The experience of change in Russia and Eastern Europe showed that the strength of dictatorial regimes ultimately depended on the success of their economic system. Economic weakness and inefficiency inevitably lead to political collapse. Sufficiently high rates of economic growth and the absence of pronounced disproportions in income distribution are also important.

An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system is open, there is a possibility of balancing between the growth of the extraction, regulatory function and response to the attitude of society to public policy. The political system, without claiming to be the main subject of social changes, is designed to support existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

The dissatisfaction of the masses with the policies of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis, destabilizing society as a whole and its subsystems.

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

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be considered as a problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification, determined by internal and external incentives.

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

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Factors of social stability

In accordance with the three main levels of social stability, the main groups of factors that ensure them should be identified. It is obvious that the stability of each social system is determined by internal factors of the system and external factors in relation to this system. Thus, the stability of the education system as a social institution depends on internal factors- professional preparedness of the teaching staff, optimal ratio of the number of teachers and students, program and methodological support, etc. At the same time, the stability of the activities of this area (system) also depends on many external factors, such as, in particular, state legislation and state policy in the field of education, political stability of society, material, technical and financial support, etc. The same, in principle, can be said about any other social system.

Particular attention should be paid to the issue of the stability of social systems at the national-state level, that is, the stability of a particular society as a whole. The external factors of its stability are obvious. This is a favorable international environment, the presence of normal ties and relations with other countries and states and, perhaps most importantly, inclusion in the global social system. It is no coincidence that, for example, Russia in Lately makes every effort to enter on equal terms into a number of international governmental and non-governmental organizations and bodies, which, naturally, will contribute to the social stability of Russian society itself.

The internal factors of social stability are very diverse. The most important place among them is stable operation social institutions, covering the social, political, economic, cultural systems of society. In a stable society, a certain correspondence is established between them, as a result of which they seem to mutually support each other. Moreover, a malfunction or dysfunction of even one system has a significant destabilizing effect on the entire society as a societal system. In this regard, we should especially emphasize the importance of the cultural system, which in practice is often underestimated. The fact is that the cultural system of society, as it were, legitimizes, legitimizes other systems and the orders prevailing in them. These systems (and orders) in the eyes of people should look legal, “correct”, fair from the point of view of dominant cultural ideals, values and norms. Only then will people try to comply with these orders. Otherwise, the formally established orders in the economic and political systems are alienated from the people.

The stability of society largely depends on the stable state of the political system, primarily the state, and the interaction of the executive, legislative and judicial powers. One of defense mechanisms stability may result from the development of a multi-party system. But in the absence of the necessary legislation regulating the relationship between parties and power structures, in the absence or lack of a common culture, and especially the culture of inter-party political struggle, a multi-party system can become a factor of destabilization public life. But in principle, a multi-party system is one of society’s defense mechanisms against the onset of authoritarianism and dictatorship. At the same time, the arena and focus of the struggle of various political parties and organized political groups is, as a rule, parliament.

In strengthening political stability, an important role belongs to such a factor of social life as consensus (agreement) regarding basic values on the part of the main political forces and parties, representatives of all branches of government. Such a consensus, on the one hand, acts as a reflection of broader and larger-scale orientations social groups and layers, on the other hand, helps strengthen these orientations. Therefore, the more such orientations dominate in a society, the more stable and sustainable the society itself as a whole is, the stronger its democratic foundations are. The need for consensus is most acute during periods of transition, when public consent can and does play a decisive role.

However, neither in theory nor in practice can democratic consensus be identified with totalitarian unanimity. The latter does not tolerate dissent; it allows the “thought” only of the main character, the supreme ruler, be it an emperor, dictator, president or secretary general. Diversity and variety of opinions are not allowed here. Democratic consensus presupposes the obligatory presence of pluralism of opinions and ideas among various social movements, political parties, branches of government, social strata and groups. Here, the wealth of opinions serves as a method of finding the most correct, effective, optimal solutions, and not a source of primitive discord and propaganda polemics.

Among the social factors of social stability, many researchers and politicians name factors related to its social-class structure, its stratification. Among them is the presence in society of a fairly large middle class, with average incomes for a given society and average private property. The presence of such a class determines the presence and strengthening of centrist political forces that are capable of attracting the most active sections of the population to their side. Conversely, the insufficient influence of centrist groups can serve as a general background against which extremist circles seize the initiative, which in turn leads to political and social tension, aggravates the struggle of political forces and thereby increases the risk of instability.

Social instability

In real social life there is practically no absolute stability. In any society, there are always imbalances within and between social systems, manifestations of real or potential instability. Instability is understood as such deformations of the structure, functions or any processes of social systems (including societal ones) that deform these systems and threaten their integrity. Such instability can occur at the level of individual social systems (instability of the economy, state power, etc.), their interaction with each other, and finally, at the level of the entire society.

However, the concept of instability also has a broader fundamental scientific and philosophical meaning. According to modern ideas, which are becoming increasingly widespread among scientists of various scientific profiles, instability in the sense instability is a fundamental characteristic of the entire universe. Such ideas can also be attributed to society. At the same time, instability should be understood not as social chaos, but as incompleteness, incompleteness at any given moment of social evolution, the possibility and necessity of social changes at one point or another of social existence, even the unpredictability of these changes, their specific direction, time and place of occurrence.

In real social life, instability, as a rule, is a sign of some unresolved problems, dysfunctions and deformations. Factors of instability, like factors of stability, can be external in relation to the social system and internal. External factors, in turn, can be divided into social (anthropogenic) And natural. The impact of external social factors can significantly deform and even destroy the social system. Thus, during the period of aggressive colonialist wars, many societies in Africa, Asia, America, Australia were destroyed, entire peoples, often with a high and unique culture, were destroyed. The stability of social (societal) systems can be significantly disrupted by natural disasters. Under their influence, some social institutions, for example, the economy and the healthcare system, are often deformed or completely destroyed. Earthquakes, floods, typhoons, tsunamis, etc. cause enormous damage to the national economy, various life support systems of people, and their lives.

Internal social factors of instability of social systems are also very diverse. Some of them have already been mentioned in this paragraph. In general it can be said that system instability- this is destruction or at least violation of its integrity, deformation of structure and functions. This situation can be illustrated in more detail using the example of social institutions. The instability of the activities of social institutions is manifested primarily in a significant imbalance between structural components (for example, an imbalance of sectors of the national economy in the economy), in functional disorder up to the failure to perform necessary social functions, and deformation in the relationships between various social institutions.

Social crises

As already mentioned, instability in developing societies almost always exists in one form or another. Instability deepens and expands if ruling groups do not take measures to control them or if these measures are insufficient and inadequate. In this case, instability not only increases, but develops into a crisis situation, a crisis.

Can be fixed three stages in this process. First - This is a deformation of individual structures, individual functions or processes within a social system, as well as individual violations of intersystem connections. At the level of the entire society as a societal system, these are mainly deformations of individual social institutions, as already mentioned.

Second - general instability of the social system as such, when its integrity is significantly violated. This is the stage of a general crisis of a social system or, if we are talking about a societal system, a systemic crisis of the entire society. At this stage, restoration and revival of the system in its former quality is still possible, although this requires much greater effort than at the previous stage.

When studying such situations, the approach proposed by scientists from the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences is of fundamental importance, which consists in determining extremely critical, threshold indicators of the systemic crisis of society, indicating the danger of irreversible decomposition processes. These indicators are grouped into seven most important spheres of life of a particular society: economic relations, social sphere, demographic situation, environmental situation, deviant behavior, political relations, defense capability. Thus, the social sphere contains four indicators:

the ratio of the incomes of the richest 10% and the poorest 10% of citizens. The extremely critical value in world practice is expressed by the number 10: 1;
proportion of the population living below the poverty line. The maximum critical value in world practice is 10%;
ratio of minimum and average wages. The extremely critical value in world practice is 1: 3;
unemployment rate. The maximum critical global value is 8-10%. In the second half of the 1990s. many real indicators of the development of Russian society went beyond the extremely critical global indicators, which had a very serious impact on the stability of Russian society as a whole. For example, the income ratio between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in 1996 was 15:1.

Finally, third stage of instability - this is a catastrophe, that is, the destruction of a given social system as such, the end of its existence. A return to the previous state is no longer possible, and destructive anti-systemic social changes are becoming irreversible. History only knows two exits of such social catastrophes: 1) collapse, dying of a given social system (society), civilization and culture (the death of ancient Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Byzantine and other civilizations); 2) transition to a fundamentally new social quality, the formation of a qualitatively new social system (transformation of feudal or semi-feudal social systems and institutions in Japan, Malaysia and other countries into capitalist ones). The latter is possible only under certain objective and subjective conditions, political will ruling groups, enormous efforts of significant masses of people.

20. Political stability.

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

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

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

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

are recognized as universal, regardless of class, ethnic, confessional

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

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

is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize the 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 capable of ensuring a breakthrough for society during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the 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 their status allows them to maintain their social positions. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general period6 or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

society. A unity of power and society emerges, which is necessary for the “conduct of deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensures the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly through 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 by civilization in other ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief that the country is prosperous in comparison with others is cultivated, the dynamics are maintained growth of well-being.

An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system is open, there is a possibility of balancing between the growth of the extraction, regulatory function and response to the attitude of society to public policy. The political system, without claiming to be the main subject of social changes, is designed to support existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

The dissatisfaction of the masses with the policies of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis, destabilizing society as a whole and its subsystems.

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

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be considered as a problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification, determined by internal and external incentives.

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

Sections

Socio-political stability of regions and the events that determine it. Conditions and factors of political stability

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

Similar documents

Factors of social stability

Social instability

Social crises