Political stability. Political stability: main components and their relationships

home

Security systems

20. Political stability.

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 conduct,

which 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 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 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, repression is historically short-lived and illusory in nature, since it is achieved “from above” without participation masses and 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 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 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.

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

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

The balance of interests ensures the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system, the necessary degree of approval and acceptance of democratic rules and norms of political behavior. But not only the 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.

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.

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 occurs in social structures where development

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, 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 claiming 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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, 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.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

Various interpretations of the concept of political power; its types, features, subjects and objects. Characteristics of traditional, charismatic and rational-legal types of legitimacy of power as important condition political stability.

abstract, added 08/10/2011

The essence and indicators of political stability. Interethnic conflicts, the reasons that cause them. Conditions and methods for ensuring political stability. Political stability in Russian literature and its definition in Western political science.

test, added 11/10/2010

The history of the separation of political psychology into an independent branch in the twentieth century. Principles, methodology and specificity of political-psychological research. Discussions regarding the definition of the subject of political psychology. Typology of political culture.

test, added 03/08/2011

Civil society in the structure of the mechanism of functioning and development of the political system. Theoretical and methodological foundations for a comprehensive analysis of the political elite. Political factors of stability modern society, legitimate support.

abstract, added 11/23/2009

Types and functions of political culture. Political socialization in relation to a specific individual. Basic political values. Features of Russian political culture. Dependence of citizens on the state. The most important species political subculture.

abstract, added 01/14/2010

The importance of political culture for society and the political system. Features of Russian political culture. A type of political culture characteristic of America. Values, types of political culture by subject. Functions of political culture.

abstract, added 11/05/2010

The effectiveness of the political regime in the conditions of transformation of the political system. The attitude of citizens to political power, its decisions and actions, values and social orientations. Problems of recognizing the legitimacy of existing political power.

abstract, added 09.26.2010

The concept of political power and its distinctive features. Basics government controlled. Consideration of the historically established features of political power in Russia; studying its legitimacy during the period of the USSR, perestroika and at the present stage.

abstract, added 10/01/2014

Concept and characteristics of a political system. Expression of political interests of various classes, social strata and groups. The structure of the political system of society and trends in its development. Type and functional characteristics of the political system.

abstract, added 11/14/2011

Collective and selective incentives for the recruitment of supporters by leaders of political organizations. The heterogeneity of political culture in Russia, the history of its formation and current state. Directions in the formation of political culture and the functions of the media.

In general theoretical terms, categories such as “immutability” and “stability” are close to the concept of “stability”. They characterize some specific processes occurring in various spheres of social life. Thus, immutability implies a process in which, within certain time and spatial intervals, the state of the objects under consideration remains essentially the same. Stability defines processes in terms of their ability to keep changes (fluctuations) within given (pre-known) boundaries, within certain parameters, and also indicates the ability of the system to restore disturbed equilibrium. Both a destructive process and a creative one can be sustainable. Stability does not necessarily mean immutability, although it may include it as a special case. More often than not, sustainability means consistency and predictability of change. And it brings us closer this category with the concept of “stability”. But it would be wrong to identify these categories.

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

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

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

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

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

There are at least three aspects to keep in mind. The first is systemic, including patterns and trends of holistic, integrated development political sphere society, the processes occurring in it in a specific historical time. The second is cognitive, based on the presence of the functioning subject (subjects) with the necessary timely and sufficiently complete information about events, phenomena and processes developing in the different levels political management. The third is functional, consisting of the plans and programs of the subjects of the political process and taking into account the possible and real results of political activity.

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

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

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

An important component of diffuse support is trust. It arises due to the satisfaction of different groups of the population with the activities of, first of all, power structures that make decisions that are adequate to their social expectations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicts play an ambiguous role in the functioning of the political system. Their occurrence is an indicator of a certain trouble or aggravated contradiction. But conflicts by themselves cannot significantly affect the stability of a political system if the latter has mechanisms for their institutionalization, localization or resolution. “To say that irreconcilable conflict is an endemic feature of society is not to say that society is characterized by constant instability.”

These words of R. Bendix are fair, although with great reservations they can be attributed to interethnic conflicts, which are difficult to transform in any way and the consequences of which can be the most destructive. This is largely explained by the fact that the reasons that cause them are, as a rule, complex in nature. Among them are “existing or newly emerging social differentiation along ethnic boundaries, unequal access to power and resources, legal and cultural discrimination, propaganda of xenophobia and negative stereotypes.” The interethnic rivalry that arises on such a basis can take on harsh forms and continue for years (or even decades), shaking the foundations of the political system of society.

Thus, the presence of valid mechanisms for the rapid detection, prevention and resolution of conflicts remains a necessary condition for the effective functioning of the political system and an indicator of its stability.

The political system, being open, experiences not only internal, but also external influences that can cause its destabilization under certain conditions. The most important indicator The stability of the political system is its ability to neutralize negative influences from the outside.

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

At the same time, external influences can also be positive for the political system if the state’s foreign policy does not contradict the interests of the international community. The peoples are interested in the consistent implementation of democratization, humanization and demilitarization of world politics, in the development of measures to ensure the survival of humanity in the conditions of the crisis of modern society and the sharp deterioration in quality natural factors. Taking into account these global needs in political practice evokes the approval and support of other countries of the world community, which strengthens the position and authority of the state and its leaders in public opinion both abroad and within the country.

The functioning of the political system, facing outward, adequate to the current needs of the development of the world community, makes it more effective and gives it an additional impetus for stability, and therefore security for the country, with which the latter is closely connected.

Political stability - a stable state of the political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of external and internal environment, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change.

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

· Mobilization stability arises in social structures where development is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize a goal for a certain period of time. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, General civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take upon themselves the responsibility to express the interests of society and are able to ensure its progress during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of 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 the status quo allows it to maintain its social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

· Autonomous stability type, i.e. independent of the desire and will of smb. specific social and political subjects, arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of government and society emerges, which is necessary for carrying out deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensuring the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly 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 are legalized and resolved in civilizational ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in the well-being of the country in comparison with others is cultivated, and growth dynamics are maintained. welfare. An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

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 states, the personification of power, the predominance of corporate interests of the ruling elite in state policy, the presence of interethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of democratic power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinaire politics, etc. Instability can manifest itself in such forms as changes in the political regime, change of government, armed struggle against the ruling regime, activation of opposition forces, etc.

Conclusion.

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

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

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

Bibliography.

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

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

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

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

The political preferences of the people are stability.

The political predilections of the authorities are control over the people to ensure stability.

Vladimir Borisov

As a result of mastering this topic, the student should: know:

the concept of political stability;
basic approaches to the study of political stability;
features of political stability in Russian Federation; be able to:
analyze and predict political stability in the modern world;

own:

Skills for determining the degree of stability of a political system

Concept of political stability

Political stability is the main mechanism of government, highlighting the main problem scientific analysis and forecasting the political situation where government decisions, somewhat distant from politics.

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relationships prevails, reflecting the commonality and continuity of goals, values and means of their implementation. At the same time, stability is the ability of subjects socio-economic and political life to resist internal and external actions that disrupt 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 term “stability” (from the Latin stabilis - stable, constant) means strengthening, bringing into a constant stable state or maintaining this state. In general theoretical terms, categories such as “immutability” and “stability” are close to the concept of “stability”. Thus, immutability implies a process in which, within certain time and spatial intervals, the state of the objects under consideration remains the same.

Stability is characterized through the ability of acting actors to maintain changes within given boundaries, within certain parameters, and also indicates the ability of the system to restore disturbed equilibrium. Stability in itself does not contain an indication of this or that quality of a process or state: both a destructive process and a creative one can be sustainable. It also does not necessarily mean immutability, although it may include it as a special case. As a rule, sustainability implies constancy and predictability of changes, which brings this category closer to the concept of “stability”. But it would be wrong to equate sustainability with stability.

Concept “ political stability” in political science and social literature is represented by many definitions that are in a certain way related to the concept of political stability.

You can select three main approaches to an understanding of sustainability and stability. In the first case, they are used as characteristics of different states of the polity - static and dynamic, respectively. Political stability is defined as “a system of connections between various political entities, which is characterized by a certain integrity and the ability to effectively implement the functions assigned to it”, and to implement them “ long time without drastic changes.” In a social context, stability appears to be a combination of progress and social solidarity, a balance of power among the main political factors. In other words, stability is a state of development with social consensus regarding the rules by which development takes place. The definition of sustainability is mainly given from the standpoint of system analysis, characterizing “the ability of a system to restore disturbed equilibrium” within the framework of “its strategic, historical dimensions.”

The second body of work does not contain the above distinction; either one of the concepts is not used at all, or both are used, but as synonyms. Thus, S. Huntington’s famous work “Political Order in Changing Societies” is an example of combining the concepts of stability (the main, most frequently used concept) and sustainability (sometimes replacing it).

In the third group of works, the concepts of sustainability and stability are opposed to each other: sustainability is understood as negative quality, “ossification”, “resistance”, “the cause of internal political instability”, preventing the reform of society.

notice, that common feature The three approaches provide a systemic context for understanding sustainability and stability, which is justified and in many cases useful. Considering that sustainability is understood and perceived differently, we will use only the concept of stability as a state of society, characterized by the ability to modernize without serious social upheavals.

The authors of the textbook “General and Applied Political Science” V.I. Zhukov, B.I. Krasnov academically reveal the essence of the concept of “political stability”, who note that “political stability is a stable state of the political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of external environment and internal factors, maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change.”

In modern political science there is no single point of view on the concept of political stability.

As modern Russian scientists, including L. N. Alisova and Z. T. Golenkova, note, the category “stability” can be legitimately used to characterize enough complex systems that retain their identity and operate in conditions of relative instability.” I would like to emphasize that the concept of stability is applicable to characterize only those processes and phenomena that are characterized by changes, cause-and-effect patterns of both linear and probabilistic properties.

The Russian scientist A. S. Makarychev notes that “stability, although it is a “multidimensional” phenomenon, should be described in “comparative categories,” that is, involve comparison with the states of the political regime or system in which it functioned before.”

At the same time, Russian political scientist A. S. Makarychev identifies a number of approaches to defining “stability”, which are accepted by both Western and Russian political science.

Stability is the absence in society of a real threat of illegitimate violence or the state’s ability to cope with it in a crisis situation.
The determining factor for stability can be considered the presence and maintenance of constitutional order in the country.
Political stability is often seen as a consequence of the legitimacy of government.
Stability is interpreted as the absence of structural changes in the political system or the presence of the ability to manage them.
Stability is interpreted as a model of behavior and a social attribute.

The concept of “stability” in the conceptual field of political science has different definitions. A number of researchers understand “political stability” as a certain state.

Thus, the definition of “political stability” by the domestic political scientist Yu. V. Irkhin sounds in the following way: this is “the state of the political life of society, manifested in the sustainable functioning of all political institutions existing in society, in compliance with legal, political and moral norms, as well as the most important social traditions that have developed in it, in a peaceful resolution conflict situations, which generally allows this social system to function and develop effectively, while maintaining its structure and qualitative certainty.

Today, the most relevant definition is that proposed by Professor M. A. Vasilik:

“Political stability is a stable state of society, allowing 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 state of political stability cannot be understood as something frozen, unchangeable, given once and for all. Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order in which a system of connections and relationships prevails, reflecting the commonality and continuity of goals, values and means of their implementation. At the same time, stability is the ability of subjects of socio-economic and political life to resist internal and external influences that disorganize the system and neutralize them. In this understanding, stability is perceived as the most important mechanism for life support and development of the social system.”

I would like to dwell on the basic conditions of political stability:

1. Stable economic growth, accompanied by an increase in the middle strata of the population (“middle class”) and corresponding changes in political culture.
2. High level political culture, the presence of democratic values recognized by the majority, which makes it possible to coordinate opposing and conflicting interests, goals, positions.
3. The presence of democratic traditions, tolerance (tolerance) in society, respect for the law and loyalty to political institutions. Compliance with certain “rules” by participants in the political process, based both on mutual agreement and on the fear of effective sanctions from the “partner” for violating them.
4. Ensuring maximum free access to political institutions for non-traditional social groups (previously not participating in political life). Such provision makes it possible to maintain the loyalty of the masses towards the political system.
5. Creating opportunities for realizing the interests of the majority of social groups in the economic sphere. The absence of such an opportunity gives rise to the desire to “put pressure”, “push” on government bodies in order to obtain additional material advantages, improve financial situation. A “chain reaction” occurs: groups are drawn into a kind of competition to “extort” material wealth, and since the authorities cannot provide everyone equally, a field of conflicts, confrontation and social tension opens up.
6. Recognition by the military of civilian authority or at least a neutral attitude towards it. Political stability is a matter of concern for the ruling political forces and political leadership.

Modern Russian society is experiencing a crisis stage of its development, which is characterized by such a state of the social system when all its connections and processes are determined by the area of critical values, i.e. it is unstable. This situation is associated with the socio-economic transformations being carried out in the country. Political instability and lack of conceptual development strategies external relations, national interests, regional policy of Russia, the lack of verified socio-economic programs lead to uncertainty in the sphere of ensuring the security of Russian society.

It should be noted that many researchers consider instability to be the basic state of developing systems. For example, Russian scientist V.S. Egorov presents “... disequilibrium and instability as the main general conditions systems, ...and...equilibrium and determinism as a special case of nonequilibrium and indeterminism...” . In his opinion, the initial state for a social system is “... disequilibrium and instability, non-linear development...”, and society is considered by him as “... an open system, which is characterized by disequilibrium, instability, non-linear development and its irreversibility. ..” .

The problem of instability was studied in most detail by S.P. Kurdyumov and I. Prigogine. They quite rightly define instability as the inability of a social system to manage changes and cope with them. The instability of society is characterized by a lack of stability and the inability to develop in accordance with changing conditions.

In connection with the above, I would like to emphasize that along with the concept of “political stability” there is the concept of “political instability”.

Political instability- this is an increase in socio-political tension in society, an inability to achieve, on the basis of a compromise, the interests of various politically significant social groups, national agreement on the choice of path further development and, in particular, on reforming the economy and political system.

Signs of instability are:

the inability of the political system to function and survive for a long time without drastic changes;
the inability of the system to combine different interests, instill skills for cooperation and agreement, and coordinate group and corporate political activities;
an increase in the level of political violence and protest sentiments in society, as well as the likelihood of a change in the regime or governing bodies of the state.

An indicator of destabilization is the results of the functioning of the political system that were not expected and are unacceptable. As Russian political scientist V.V. Lokosov notes, any social system has its own entropy limit for each vital parameter, crossing which means the death of the system under consideration as a whole.

A factor of instability may also be the lack of a developed political culture conducive to civilized participation in the political life of the country.

Domestic political scientist O. F. Shabrov believes that an ineffective government cannot remain legitimate and therefore stable for a long time.

In conclusion, I would like to note that instability is inversely proportional to the level of legitimacy of the regime, the development of political institutions, increasing socio-economic mobility, the pace of economic development, improving the network of political communications, consensus within the elite and other similar factors. Today, political instability is a feature of most political systems due to the global economic crisis and the collapse of political regimes in the East.

Alisova L.N., Golenkova Z.T. Political sociology. - M.: Mysl, 2000. - URL: http://society.polbu.ru/alisovajpolitsociology/ch38 all.html
Political science: encyclopedic Dictionary/ General ed. and comp.Yu. I. Averyanov. - M.: Publishing house Moskovsk. commercial University, 1993. - P. 281.
http: //slovari.yandex.ru/diet/gl_social/article /14013/140l_3349.htm
Social stability. A Dictionary of Sociology / John Scott and GordonMarshall. - Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online.
Shapovalenko M. V. Unstable stability of transit societies. - URL: pravoznavec.com.ua/books/320/24642/18/

Sections