discipline: "Political Science"

"Characteristics of political processes"

Moscow 2012

Introduction

1. The concept of the political process

Features of political processes

Types of political processes

Analysis of political processes. Sociological approach to the analysis of political processes

Conclusion

Introduction

At the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. The influence of politics, political instruments and processes on the destinies of individuals and entire nations became even more clearly visible. Russia finds itself at the epicenter of world political events. At present, apparently, there is no other country where the paradoxes of socio-political life would be clearly and simultaneously manifested: the politicization of large sections of the population, the media and the apolitical passivity of the same population; the emergence of a mass of new tools and forms of political participation and the lack of experience and knowledge of democratic participation in the management of state affairs.

The political process in Russia is characterized by its unpredictability. The autocrat makes all decisions on socio-political issues personally.

During the era of the USSR, all power in the state was concentrated in the CPSU, which regulated all aspects of life in the Soviet Union.

At the present time, when Russia has declared itself a democratic state, when Russians have the right to free choice, when the political process is expressed in a real separation of powers, in political pluralism; when there is a clash of different ideologies, which social democracy is called upon to unite. So far, this ideology has a small number of supporters in Russia.

It is against this background of the socio-political life of the state that it seems appropriate to us to highlight and make an attempt to analyze some of the features and peculiarities of the Russian political process. Having identified these features, we will outline the trends of its further development.

1.Concept of political process

political process

Under processin general (from the Latin Processo - advancement) is understood the course of a phenomenon, the sequential change of its states, stages of development, as well as a set of sequential actions to achieve a result.

The process approach in science makes it possible to study phenomena and facts in dynamics, development, and movement and influence these changes or use the information obtained for other purposes. This is achieved by determining changes over time, clarifying the stages, direction, intensity, trends of these changes, making certain decisions and operations.

The interaction of political subjects regarding state power, as a dynamic phenomenon, presupposes a procedural approach that allows us to explore the causes of the emergence of certain political problems, the process of developing and making political decisions, the creation of new management structures, that is, we are talking about political practice, specific management, exchange of information between subjects of the political process and much more. All this constitutes the essence of the political process, which reflects political reality and is the result of the struggle of interests of various political forces, social groups and citizens, and their influence on power structures. The result of the interaction of various subjects is the creation of stable connections and relationships, the emergence of new rules and norms, the creation or reproduction of political institutions.

The most significant difference in the procedural interpretation of the world of politics is that it reveals the constant variability of various features and characteristics of political phenomena. In this context, we are talking about a dynamic characteristic associated with changes in the behavior and relationships of subjects regarding power interests, a characteristic that unfolds in time and space.

The political process is understood as the dynamic dimension of political life, which consists in the reproduction of the components of the political system of society, as well as in changing its state; the activity of political subjects associated with the struggle for power and influencing power structures.

In political science, as a rule, processes are considered at the macro, meso and micro levels. The macro level is associated with the reproduction of the political system as a whole, its main institutions, such as the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government at the federal or national level. Reproduction in this context means not only the elections or re-elections of these institutions, but also the continuity of their work during a certain cycle, the resumption of activities daily, weekly, after each vacation. The meso-level of the political process includes meso-subprocesses of the regional level: political events in the regions, interaction of central and local authorities with regional authorities in developing policy for a particular region, reproduction of regional elites and political systems. The micro-level of the political process includes a set of micro-subprocesses that make up the local political sub-process. It can also be represented as the resultant of the actions (actions) of various local political actors.

The political process as a whole acts as a result of the addition and interaction of macro-, meso- and micro-level subprocesses, as a result of the influence of interest groups at all levels on government bodies, which leads to the adoption of decisions that take into account local, regional and central interests.

The political process is considered as one of the social processes, along with economic, ideological, legal; and also as a form of functioning of the political system of society, evolving in time and space. Thus, A. Degtyarev considers the political process as “a social macro-process, firstly, characterizing the temporal sequence of integral states of communication between people regarding power in the space of its legitimate maintenance; secondly, expressing the equinoctial result of individual and group micro-actions, that is, the total political activity of a given community; thirdly, including the ways of interaction between state and society, institutions and groups, political system and social environment, government and citizen; and, fourthly, simultaneously reproducing and changing the structural-functional and institutional matrix (hierarchy of rules and forms) of the political order (system).”

The content of the political process in modern Russia is the implementation of the Constitution adopted in 1993, which presupposes the construction in the country of a democratic legal social secular state that respects human rights and freedoms, and a civil society that interacts with this state. More specifically, the meaning of the latest reforms means strengthening and increasing the efficiency of the executive branch, reforming the state apparatus, developing market relations, establishing transparency in the actions of government bodies, parties, public organizations, developing political pluralism and constructive opposition to government.

The content of the political process is influenced by the state of the political system, all political institutions and political relations, namely: the degree of separation and balance of legislative, executive and judicial powers; level of centralization (decentralization) of power; interaction of party and government structures that directly or indirectly influence the process of political decision-making; ways of making and implementing political decisions; the relationship between the rights and prerogatives of central, regional and local authorities; relationships within the ruling stratum (relationships between the ruling and opposition elites, level of corruption, degree of bureaucratization of the bureaucracy). The state of the political process in a given country is also influenced by global trends.

One of the most widespread modern global trends is democratization. Domestic political scientist V. Nikonov, determining the direction of the political process in modern Russia, believes that in order to give it a democratic direction, it is necessary to observe two principles. The first of these states that “the political process must operate and develop according to rules and procedures that are beyond the control of one person, even the most powerful,” on the basis that political leaders should not determine the rules by which they will play. The second principle is that “the existing reality, the conflicts that the era gives rise to, should not dictate the process of creating a political system, should not find their immediate resolution at the moment when a new democratic state is created. Because the desire to reconcile the interests of all participants in the political game at the stage of creating a new constitution threatens future conflicts, the nature of which cannot be fully predicted.”

Some researchers define the structure of the political process as a set of interactions between factors, as well as their logical sequence. Others include the following elements in the structure: subjects, objects, means, methods, resources.

Temporal and spatial units of measurement of the political process, as well as factors influencing political changes, norms regulating relations between its participants, are called parameters of the political process. Changes in the parameters of the political process depend on a combination of factors, both internal and external to it. Internal factors include the characteristics of subjects, relationships between them, distribution of power resources, and the logic of the political process. External factors are socio-economic, socio-cultural conditions existing in a given society, world trends that form an environment interacting with the political process. The external environment has a certain corrective effect on the political process and supports its progress within the framework of certain norms and rules. The absence of these two types of influences (the situation in a given country and international relations) on the political process leads to its conservation and stagnation of all social relations.

The leading subjects or factors of the political process are political institutions, the main of which are the state and civil society, as well as political parties, public organizations, interest groups, and individual citizens. From numerous actions (actions) and interactions (interactions) of various factors, the overall course and results of the macroprocess are formed, which, in turn, consists of microprocesses or subprocesses. It should be taken into account that the activity of a political institution lies not only in its ability to make effective decisions, but also in the interaction of various pressure groups promoting their interests through this institution, in the implementation of the personal plans of various citizens within the framework of this institution. Therefore, the analysis takes into account both macro-results and the micro-processes that form them.

The activity of political factors is characterized by such indicators as: potential, type of action, methods of interaction.

The potential depends on their composition (individual or group), the degree of organization, mobilization of the subject, and the amount of resources.

The type of action is a function of the means, forms and methods of political struggle. It can be formed by parliamentary forms associated with the work of representative authorities, or a street meeting; violent or nonviolent types of political activity; official or unofficial influence of subjects regarding access to resources and levers of power.

The methods of interaction are determined by the types of relationships between factors. There are various options for political interactions: confrontation, neutrality, compromise, alliance, consensus. This division is based on the principle of correlation between social interests and political positions of the subjects coming into contact.

Confrontation presupposes open confrontation between political subjects. Neutrality promotes the subject’s temporary withdrawal from the field of active interactions. Compromise is based on mutual concessions, the purpose of which is to maintain a stable status quo in relations between subjects. A union is a closer, perhaps even friendly, form of political interaction when there is objective overlap of interests and some overlap of positions. Consensus is achieved through agreement on all key positions with almost complete coincidence in everyone’s understanding of their interests.

The resources of the factors of the political process may include knowledge, science, technical and financial means, information system, organization, ideology, mass sentiment, public opinion, etc. The object of the political process is, as a rule, society, consisting of various classes and social groups, as well as individuals. The means include both non-violent, communicative actions and means of state pressure.

The method of exercising power, the method of functioning of the political system, is the political regime, which determines the form of the political process (democratic or authoritarian) and influences its content.

The most common point of view is that the structure of the political process is viewed through the prism of interaction between the state and civil society, public administration and political participation, the political system and its social environment, as well as from the perspective of the activities of social actors and the functioning of political institutions that make up the content of the holistic macro process .

Interactions between the ruling group, which carries out management functions, and other groups of society, influencing the ruling elite, collaborating or competing with each other, form the general content of the political process, understood as a transition from one structure of the balance of power to another.

.Features of political processes

Coinciding in scale with the entire political space, the political process extends not only to conventional (contractual, normative) changes that characterize behavioral actions, relationships and mechanisms of competition for state power that meet the accepted norms and rules of the political game in society. Along with this, political processes also involve those changes that indicate a violation by subjects of their role functions fixed in the regulatory framework, they exceed their powers, and go beyond the limits of their political niches. Thus, the content of the political process also includes changes that take place in the activities of subjects who do not share generally accepted standards in relations with government authorities, for example, the activities of illegal parties, terrorism, criminal acts of politicians in the sphere of power, etc.

Reflecting actually existing, and not just planned changes, political processes have a pronounced non-normative character, which is explained by the presence in the political space of various types of movement (wave, cyclical, linear, inversion, i.e. return, etc.), which have their own forms and ways of transforming political phenomena, the combination of which deprives the latter of strict certainty and stability. From this point of view, the political process is a set of relatively independent, local transformations of the political activity of subjects (relations, institutions), which arise at the intersection of a wide variety of factors and the parameters of which cannot be accurately determined, much less predicted. At the same time, the political process is characterized by discrete changes or the possibility of modifying some parameters of a phenomenon and at the same time maintaining unchanged its other features and characteristics (for example, a change in the composition of the government can be combined with maintaining the previous political course). The uniqueness and discrete nature of changes excludes the possibility of extrapolation (transferring the values ​​of modern facts to the future) of certain assessments of the political process, complicates political forecasting, and sets limits to predicting political prospects.

At the same time, each type of political change has its own rhythm (cyclicality, repetition), a combination of stages and interactions of subjects, structures, and institutions. For example, the electoral process is formed in connection with election cycles, therefore the political activity of the population develops in accordance with the phases of nominating candidates for legislative or executive bodies, discussing their candidacies, electing and monitoring their activities. The decisions of the ruling parties can set their own rhythm for political processes. During periods of qualitative reformation of social relations, the decisive influence on the nature of the functioning of state institutions and the methods of political participation of the population is exerted not by the decisions of the highest governing bodies, but by individual political events that change the alignment and balance of political forces. Such a “ragged” rhythm can be set in the political process by military coups, international crises, natural disasters, etc.

Reflecting real, practically established changes in political phenomena, the political process certainly includes in its content the corresponding technologies and procedures of action. In other words, the political process demonstrates the nature of changes that are associated with the activities of a specific subject using, at one time or another and in one place or another, the methods and methods of activity familiar to him. Therefore, the use of different technologies for solving even homogeneous problems implies changes of different nature. Thus, without this technocratic link, political changes acquire an abstract character, losing their specificity and concrete historical design.

.Types of political processes

Political processes differ from each other in scale, duration, factors, nature of interaction between factors, etc. In political science, there are various types of political processes. There are several ways to typify political processes, based on different criteria.

Based on the diversity of political processes, several types can be distinguished. These are, first of all, everyday political processes (“small” factors and units of measurement), which are primarily associated with processes with direct interactions of individual, group and partially institutional factors. An example is the legislative process in a parliament.

Another type of political process is the historical political process (larger factors - mainly groups and institutions). These are processes associated with the commission of a historical event. Thus, a political revolution can be presented as a process of this kind. The emergence and development of a political party can be considered the same historical process.

Finally, these are evolutionary political processes that are characterized by participation large factors (institutions, political system), and can also be measured using large-scale time units. Such processes could be, for example, the process of turning a polis into an imperial capital, or the modernization of the political system as a result of a series of political reforms, or the transition to democracy as a result of the dismantling of authoritarian rule, the holding of constituent elections, and then their consolidation in a series of regular competitive elections.

There are other criteria for distinguishing individual types and varieties of the political process. So, A.I. Soloviev makes similar distinctions based on differences in subject areas. In addition, A.I. Soloviev distinguishes open and closed political processes. Closed political processes “mean that type of change that can be fairly clearly assessed within the criteria of better/worst, desirable/undesirable, etc. Open processes demonstrate a type of change that does not allow us to assume what character - positive or negative for the subject - the existing transformations have or which of the possible strategies in the future is more preferable... In other words, this type of process characterizes changes that occur in extremely unclear and uncertain situations, which imply increased hypotheticalness of both performed and planned actions.” Also, he distinguishes between stable and transient processes. Stable processes presuppose “stable reproduction of political relations,” while transitional ones imply the absence of “a clear predominance of certain basic properties of the organization of power,” which is carried out in conditions of “imbalance in the political activity of the main subjects.”

The political process is a dynamic characteristic of politics. Therefore, it can be argued that the forms of existence of the political process are political changes and political development. Many researchers identify different types of political processes, understanding by them types of political changes and political development.

Depending on the nature of the changes, evolutionary and revolutionary types of political development are distinguished. By evolutionary we mean a type that includes gradual, step-by-step qualitative changes. Revolutionary is a type of development focused on scale and transience. Despite the heuristic significance of identifying these types, one should recognize the conventions of their distinction in relation to political development. In reality, political development is evolutionary in nature, revolutions are only part of the evolutionary path. Their scale and transience are of fundamental importance only from the point of view of everyday life and history.

Quite often, stable and crisis types of development are distinguished. It is assumed that a stable type of political development is characteristic of societies where there are sufficient institutional guarantees and social consensus that prevent sudden changes in the political course and, especially, a sharp change in the political regime. At the same time, it is assumed that the basis for stable development is the ability of the system to adequately respond to environmental challenges. This contributes to the gradual and smooth nature of the changes.

A crisis type of development is characteristic of societies where such necessary conditions are absent and the system is unable to provide adequate responses to external changes. Then political development takes place in the form of a crisis, which can affect both individual aspects of political life and the entire system. The development of a full-scale crisis leads to an unstable state of the system or even to its collapse.

The distinction between these two types of political development should also be considered conditional. In fact, stable or crisis development is very often understood not as the evolutionary dynamics of a political system, but as a characteristic of everyday and historical political processes occurring within its framework. However, reports, for example, about a government crisis do not at all indicate the crisis nature of the political development of a given political system.

It should also be noted that in practice, the impetus and, in a certain sense, the engine of development of any political system are systemic crises. Crises arise as a result of inconsistency between structures and methods of communication between elements of the system and emerging needs. Their resolution requires qualitative changes in the system or its individual parts. In practice, we can usually observe an alternation of crises and periods of relative stability. Thus, the crisis nature of changes and political stability should be considered not as characteristics of political development as a whole, but as features of its individual moments.

Types of political development are also distinguished based on its content. Among them, globalization deserves special mention. Other types of political development are political modernization and democratization.

.Analysis of political processes

Sociological approach to the analysis of political processes.

Analysis of political processes includes identifying its main subjects, their resources, methods and conditions of their interaction, as well as the very logical sequence of this interaction. In addition, as parameters of the political process, one can distinguish the factors of the political process, the level of equilibrium, the space and time of its occurrence.

An important point in the analysis of the political process is the identification of its static and dynamic characteristics, generalized in the concepts political situation And political change.

If the concept of analysis of political change characterizes the specifics of the dynamics of the political process, then the analysis of the political situation provides a “photograph” of the political process at a specific point in time. The analysis of the situation is characterized by a static idea of ​​the parameters of the political process. In the course of such an analysis, a system of connections and relationships between the main elements of the political process that has developed at this particular moment is revealed. In this way, a basis is created for comparison of several political situations that differ over time. In other words, a basis is created for identifying the dynamics of the political process (features of political change).

Russian political scientist A.Yu. Shutov proposes the following algorithm for analyzing the political situation:

)determination of the degree of information support, verification of data accepted for study, determination of their reliability, degree of completeness of information, its quality;

)primary selection of information, exclusion of useless information about political events that are not of fundamental importance for the analysis of a given political situation;

)a description of the political infrastructure with an emphasis on those components that are directly involved in political change;

)description of the content of the actions of the dominant political subject;

)description of the state and political behavior of other entities;

)a description of the impact of external factors influencing political change;

)interpretation of the motives of the actions of the dominant political subject, its goals, and the means of their implementation;

)analysis of the motivation for the behavior of other political subjects, the degree of their acceptance (non-acceptance) of political change, possibilities, nature, forms and methods of counteraction;

)analysis of the capabilities of external factors to correct the result of the actions of the dominant political entity;

)analysis of “the ideology of political change, its adequacy to the achieved (achieved) goals and objectives.”

To identify the dynamic characteristics of the political process, it is very important to analyze its plot. Such an analysis can be carried out using tools developed within the framework of such a scientific approach as political discourse analysis. In addition, the use of formal modeling methods, game theory, and theories of political decision making provides quite interesting results for representing the dynamics of the process.

The combination of static and dynamic principles of analysis can be compared to the process of producing and viewing videotape. Each individual frame characterizes a particular situation. Based on viewing each individual frame, we can to some extent characterize the main factors, the nature and conditions of their interaction, etc. However, this analysis will be incomplete: it will be similar to a photograph, devoid of dynamics and, in many respects, context. Only by watching a series of rapidly changing frames can we get a complete picture of the film’s plot, dynamics, as well as the main parameters of the ongoing process.

An important element of studying the static and dynamic characteristics of the political process is the analysis of its external environment, which includes social, economic, cultural factors influencing the political process, as well as higher-level political changes.

One of the approaches to the study of political processes that pays significant attention to environmental analysis is the sociological approach. It involves analyzing the impact of social and sociocultural factors.

The influence of social and sociocultural factors can manifest itself not only in the characteristics of individual or group political factors in the form of interests, political attitudes, motives, modes of behavior, etc. This influence can also manifest itself in the form of the specifics of the “division” of labor in politics, the distribution of power resources, as well as the characteristics of individual political institutions. Social and sociocultural factors can also influence the structural characteristics of the political system. The social and sociocultural context largely determines the meanings (“meanings”) of certain actions, as well as the specifics of the plot of the political process. Therefore, the analysis of these factors is an integral part of the study of the political process.

As a rule, such analysis is carried out within the framework of a subdiscipline such as political sociology. This subdiscipline is younger than political science and sociology, at the junction of which it appeared: its official recognition occurred in the 50s. Often, prominent political scientists are also sociologists. Among them are such names as S. Lipset, H. Linz, J. Sartori, M. Kaase, R. Aron and many others.

The specificity of this subdiscipline lies in the fact that it is, in the apt expression of J. Sartori, an “interdisciplinary hybrid” that uses social and political independent variables to explain political phenomena.

Conclusion

The political life of Russian society today is characterized by high participation of citizens in politics. There is a struggle between people for their interests. Their involvement in election campaigns is unusual. Some are supporters of reforms and modernization of society, others are opponents of the renewal of the country and the entire system of socio-political relations.

The characteristics of political life as a set of actions carried out by its subjects are reflected in the concept of political process. In a meaningful sense, it can be considered as the production and reproduction of the political system, the means of political power, the ways of presenting the interests of class, socio-ethnic and other social groups in institutions of power, the forms of adoption and implementation of government (managerial) decisions, political participation, types of political culture, etc. .d.

The concept of the political process captures the relationship “society - political system”. Individuals and social groups strive to realize their own interests, relying on recognized ethical and legal norms, party ideology, and government agencies. All this is a process of will formation and expression, various ways of “presenting” one’s interests (elections, referendums, party membership, etc.). To the extent that interest groups try to impose their will on society, the state imposes its own will through coercion or compromise, carried out by political leaders and elites.

The political process is revealed as the relationship “society - power” in three main functions: formation, change of the political system, its support or opposition to it; articulation as a process of formation of interests by individuals and groups and the activity of interest groups and associations; aggregation as the activities of parties, political course and recruitment of political personnel. The fulfillment of these universal functions forms certain structures and modes of behavior in each political system. This applies to interest groups, pressure groups, political parties and elections, which together constitute the political process, the process of political will-formation.

In modern communication, the political and bureaucratic elite (elected politicians and appointed managers) that directly support the political process are constantly being reproduced and updated. This kind of “central political system”, as a set of bodies for managing the political process and its coordination (parliament, government, administration), has as its task the transformation of the needs, interests and demands of the public into political decisions. The claims of organizations to competently resolve an increasing number of problems at the level of a formalized decision-making structure will be complemented by the actions of informal organizations and individuals who have the trust of the authorities.

Discovering mechanisms for nominating people to government positions and identifying sources of centralization and decentralization of political decision-making processes - the central link of the political process - is an urgent task of political science.

List of used literature

1.Belov A.A., Eliseev S.M. Political processes and institutions in modern Russia: Educational and methodological manual. St. Petersburg, 2006.

2.Degtyarev A.A. Fundamentals of political theory. M., 1998.

.Eliseev S.M. Political relations and the modern political process in Russia: Lecture notes. St. Petersburg, 2000.

.Smolin O.N. Political process in modern Russia: textbook. allowance. M., 2006.

.Soloviev A.I. Political science. Political theory. Political technologies. M., 2000. P. 293.

.Shutov A.Yu. Political process. M., 1994

.Political process: main aspects and methods of analysis: Collection of educational materials / ed. E.Yu. Meleshkina. M., 2001.

.Political science on the Russian background / Under. ed. V.V. Ryabova. M., 1993. 480 p.

.Political Science in Questions and Answers / Under. ed. SOUTH. Volkova. M 1999. p. 347-390.

.Modern political process in Russia. M., 1998.

.Modern Russian politics: A course of lectures/Ed. V. Nikonova. M., 2003.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

By objects of influence political processes are divided into foreign policy and domestic policy.

According to the nature of the transformation of the state, they distinguish:

Revolutionary And evolutionary political processes.

In the first case, there is a rapid and qualitative change in the power structures of the state, a complete revision of its constitution, conflict increases, and a renewal of political elites occurs, which is accompanied by the radicalism of decisions made and the predominance of violence in their implementation.

Evolutionary political process is based on the legitimacy of political power. Here, the resolution of social problems occurs gradually, peacefully, on the basis of legal competition of political parties, interaction between the elite and the masses, sustainability of decision-making procedures and institutions; the predominance of the ethics of compromise, consensus and tolerance of dissent in political behavior and the mandatory presence of the institution of political opposition.

There are also open And closed political processes.

An open political process is characterized by transparency and accessibility for citizens participating in the political decision-making process.

Closed political processes are characterized by a lack of openness and publicity when making political decisions, exclusion or significant limitation of the political activity of citizens, and a complete lack of control over the ruling elite by society.

In general, it is important to know that no matter what type of political process we are talking about, predicting its results is a thankless task, and most often these forecasts turn out to be unsuccessful.

This is so because something unexpected and unplanned always arises next to the planned result. The best forecast in this context is the formula: “we want the best, but it turns out as always.” The point is also that in the political process there are many variables, the occurrence and behavior of which cannot be taken into account or predicted. In addition, there is a pattern in politics that if there are two or more ways to do something, and at the same time using one of them leads to disaster, then someone (sooner or later) will choose this method.

Topic 11 Activities of subjects of political processes

1 The nature and functions of political elites and leaders

2 Mechanisms for the formation (recruitment) of the political elite

3 Processes of change (circulation) of political elites and leaders

1 The nature and functions of political elites and leaders.

The term “elite” comes from the French “elite” - the best, chosen, chosen. From the 17th century it is used to denote goods of the highest quality. The Oxford University Dictionary in 1823 first used the concept of “political elite” to describe the highest social groups of society. However, the term “elite” was not widely used in the social sciences until the beginning of the 20th century, i.e. before the appearance of the works of V. Pareto (1848-1923), G. Mosca (1858-1941), R. Michels (1876-1936).

The concept of “elite” refers to a narrow and relatively closed circle of people with a fairly constant and limited number, with strong internal connections, and having more significant weight compared to those around them.

The variety of existing definitions of the elite reflect its value and functional qualities. The term “elite” has firmly entered into sociological and political science dictionaries and implies the following content:

Persons with the highest performance in their field of activity (V. Pareto);

The most politically active people are power-oriented (G. Mosca);

People who have received the greatest prestige and status in society (G. Lasswell);

Persons with power who perform the most important functions (Keller);

The creative minority opposing the uncreative majority (Toynbee);

Individuals who have intellectual and moral superiority over the masses (Ortega y Gasset);

Along with the term “elite”, the phrases “ruling elite”, “ruling groups”, “ruling circles”, etc. are widely used in everyday life. In modern Western political science, the tradition of using the categories “ruling elite” and “political elite” has become established.

The political elite is a relatively small, privileged group that concentrates in its hands a significant amount of political power, monopolistic decision-making, and exercises control over their implementation.

The existence of the political elite is determined by the following factors:

Social inequality of people, their unequal abilities, opportunities and desire to participate in politics;

Increasing professionalization of politics and the need for specialized political knowledge for quick decision-making;

Professionalization of managerial work and its allocation into a special environment of activity (management), including political;

Wide possibilities for using management activities to obtain various social benefits and privileges;

The practical impossibility of exercising comprehensive control over the ruling elite;

The political passivity of the broad masses of the population, whose main vital interests usually lie outside the sphere of politics, the prevalence of absenteeism;

The Italian researcher G. Mosca believed that the elite is a united minority that monopolizes power and carries out all political functions. The minority's ability to organize gives it power. Cohesion of a minority is ensured by property, education, origin, etc.

The advantages of the political elite are wide channels of communication and information, which allows them to make and implement decisions clearly and quickly. The absence of the noted qualities in the majority deprives them of the possibility of self-organization and puts this majority in the position of being controlled.

Thus, The political elite is an organizational minority, a controlling group that is part of a class or social stratum and has real political power, giving it the opportunity to influence all spheres of society.

Functions of the political elite have the highest importance for the whole society and the most significant of them are the following:

Study, analysis and articulation of the interests of certain social communities: classes, groups, strata, nations, etc.;

Reflection of social interests in political attitudes (ideals, speeches, appeals) with the aim of integrating society;

Development of a political program, doctrine with a certain political strategy and tactics;

Determining resources, ways and means of strengthening (or overthrowing) the existing political system;

Ideological support of ideals, values, models of political behavior in order to achieve public consent;

Creation of a state mechanism for the implementation of political programs and decisions by appointing the personnel apparatus of government bodies, nominating political leaders from among themselves and promoting them to senior government positions, adjusting the political system.

Thus, more briefly, the essential functions of the political elite can be described as strategic, communicative, organizational, integrative.

In political science, an attempt has been made to classify political elites on various grounds:

By place in the political system and participation in the exercise of power distinguish between the ruling elite and the non-ruling elite (counter-elite).

The ruling elite directly makes political decisions that determine the development program for the entire society.

The non-ruling elite (counter-elite) is trying to influence this process by available means. Competition in the field of elite activity is very fierce and is constantly growing. The change of the ruling elite is a natural process in which there are stages of origin, development, obsolescence and death of elites.

As a result, the following properties can be recognized in the ruling elite:

Any society is elitist, it welcomes the ruling elite;

Internal organization, cohesion and group identification;

Ambitiousness and strong will to organize and regulate the lives of the masses;

Integration and representativeness;

Maintaining power through force and “flirting” with the masses; Change in power as a result of competition.

By level of competence and scope of power The elite is divided into higher (national), middle (regional), and local (administrative). The highest political elite, significant for the entire country, makes the most important strategic political decisions. This includes the president and his entourage, the head and members of the government, heads of parliament, the highest judicial authorities, leaders of influential political parties and blocs. The middle elite includes representatives of elected authorities: deputies, governors, mayors, leaders of regional branches of parties and movements. The administrative elite includes the highest stratum of civil servants and administrative officials who carry out the technical execution of decisions made. However, in modern conditions, it is difficult for the ruling elite to maintain the indicators of homogeneity and integration. The specialization of management has led to the strengthening of the role of functional sub-elites - managers, intellectuals, various pressure groups who understand specific issues of political decision-making better than the ruling elite.

By degree of representativeness there are integrated and disconnected political elites.

Elites with a high degree of integration develop a unified system of political values, general rules of political competition and the exercise of power, and agree on the main goals and methods of the policies pursued. They are characterized by consensual relationships with a low degree of conflict. Weakly integrated (disconnected) elites are characterized by an intense political struggle for spheres of control and resources of power, for mastering strategic positions. According to the intensity of circulation and methods of recruitment

open and closed elites are distinguished.

Open elites are characterized by the following features: fairly free access to the elite based on competition and taking into account business personal qualities, dynamic circulation, and the ability to innovate and reform. Closed elites are characterized by slow circulation, limited access to new members based on strict formal characteristics (nobility, party affiliation, religiosity, etc.), corporatism and inability to quickly respond to ongoing social changes. Such elites are more prone to turning into closed oligarchic groups and self-degeneration.

Thus, emphasizing the importance and significance of the political elite, one should indicate those features that are its integral qualitative characteristics.

The universality and binding nature of decisions made by the political elite for the entire society;

Isolation from society and the privileged position of the political elite, especially the highest, due to the functions they perform;

Intolerance to competition and constant struggle for power depending on the degree of integration and methods of recruiting the elite;

The desire to be uncontrollable by society due to the law of “oligarchic tendencies”;

Possession of almost all resources of state power and their use for the purpose of domination and control.

The desire to be uncontrollable by society due to the law of “oligarchic tendencies”; Political leadership

The phenomenon of leadership was of interest to many thinkers and researchers (Plato, Plutarch, Machiavelli, Nietzsche), psychologists (Freud, Adler), sociologists (E. Bogardus, M. Weber, M. Hermann, G. Almond). Wide scientific and public interest in the institution of leadership emphasizes its versatility and social significance. “People cannot do without leadership, just like they cannot do without food and water,” emphasized former French President De Gaulle.

There is diversity theories, explaining the nature and origin of leadership.

Trait theory(E. Bogardus) argues that certain personal qualities (mind, intelligence, energy, communication skills, etc.) allow a person to become a leader. However, the individual traits of a leader based on this theory are no different from the psychological and social qualities of any individual.

Situational theory proves that a leader is a function of a certain situation, and he can emerge as a result of a successful combination of circumstances under which his outstanding qualities will be in demand (Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev).

Leader follower theory defines the nature of leadership based on a special form of relationship between an authoritative person and the environment whose interests she expresses. However, leaders cannot always live up to the expectations of their constituents (followers) and can even threaten the existence of a country or nation (Hitler, Stalin).

Psychoanalysis concept(S. Freud) explains the nature of leadership by the presence in an individual of special psychological traits and motives that push him towards political dominance, imposing his will, etc.

Some people compensate for psychological stress and personal inferiority complexes with the help of unlimited power, the use of force, etc.

However, in modern political science, integrative theories of leadership are gaining priority. For example, American political scientist M. Hermann believes that when considering leadership, all factors should be taken into account: 1) the personal traits and qualities of the leader himself; 2) characteristic features of its supporters; 3) the relationship between the leader and constituents (supporters); 4) the specific situation of leadership;

Consequently, political leadership is a process of interaction (influence, communication, relationships), during which some individuals (leaders) express the needs and interests of their followers and on this basis have prestige and influence, while others (their supporters) voluntarily give them part of the power powers to exercise representation and realize their own interests.

Existing systems in political science classifications (typologies) political leaders are driven by the desire to predict their behavior.

M. Weber’s typology is based on methods of legitimizing political power and proposes three ideal types of leadership:

Traditional (chiefs, elders, monarchs);

Rational-legal (elected leader according to current laws);

Charismatic - based on the deification of leadership and belief in its exclusivity, holiness and supreme justice.

According to the methods and methods of exercising power, they are divided into authoritarian and democratic types of leaders.

Modern political science uses the typology of leaders proposed by M. Hermann, based on the characteristics of their political activities:

A standard-bearer leader capable of captivating the masses with an attractive great goal or idea;

A servant leader who acts as a spokesman and advocate for the interests of his constituents;

Leader-ideologist, preacher and inspirer of a certain ideology;

A leader-trader can present his ideas attractively, makes them “buy” and implement them;

Leader-firefighter, focuses on current problems and their solutions;

There are other typologies of leaders in the literature: “formal”, “informal”, “ruling”, “pragmatist”, “romantic” and others.

Scientists-psychologists offer a separate classification of leadership, using the characteristics of temperament and character of individuals.

The Institute of Leadership performs the following main functions in society:

Management (on making political decisions);

Integration, associated with the unification of people, nations, social strata based on common ideas and values;

Communicative, providing a connection between government and society;

Mobilizing, aimed at organizing the implementation of certain goals and objectives;

Social arbitrage function;

The function of legitimizing a political regime with the help of personality

A more detailed assessment of the content of the political process is associated with the characteristics of its types and varieties. Political processes unfold both on a global scale and within the political system of society, a separate region, or a local territory. They can be classified by scale, nature of transformations, composition of participants, time duration, etc. Political processes act as global and national, national and regional (local), as interclass, intergroup, and within classes, social and other groups, outside or within political parties and movements.

We can say that political processes are divided into domestic political and foreign policy.

The internal political process takes place between political subjects (classes, other social groups, nations, parties, social movements, political leaders), the core of whose activity is the conquest, retention and use of political power. The internal political process covers various spheres of social life - political, legal, economic, social, environmental, demographic, cultural, military, etc. Internal political goals can be achieved by both peaceful and violent methods.

The foreign policy process extends to relations with other states as the art of conducting international affairs. It is closely connected with the dominant economic structure, social and state system and expresses them on the world stage. At the same time, the foreign policy process has a number of features due to the existence in the world of many states with divergent interests and programs in various areas. In modern conditions, the foreign policy process is increasingly becoming the art of negotiations and achieving reasonable, mutually acceptable political compromises.

According to the importance for society of certain forms of political regulation of social relations, political processes are divided into basic and peripheral.

The basic political process is characterized by various ways of including broad social strata in relations with the state, forms of transforming the interests and demands of the population into management decisions, typical methods of forming political elites, etc. In this sense, we can talk about the processes of political participation in public administration (in decision-making, the legislative process, etc.).

Peripheral political processes reveal the dynamics of the formation of individual political associations (parties, pressure groups, etc.), the development of local self-government, and other connections and relationships in the political system that do not have a fundamental impact on the dominant forms and methods of exercising power.

Based on the nature of the participation of the masses in political life, we can distinguish democratic ones, where various forms of direct and representative democracy are combined, and non-democratic ones, the internal content of which is determined by the presence of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes; the activities of relevant political parties and public organizations and leaders, the existence of an authoritarian political culture and mentality of citizens.

In political science, there are also such types of political processes as open and hidden (shadow). An open political process is characterized primarily by the fact that the political interests of groups and citizens are systematically revealed in electoral preferences, programs of parties and movements, as well as in other forms of public claims of people to government power. On the contrary, the hidden (shadow) process is based on political institutions and centers of power that are not publicly formalized, as well as on such power claims that, for various reasons, do not involve appeal to official bearers of power. The centers of power to which citizens then appeal can be prohibited, illegal and not recognized by society structures (for example, mafia clans) operating in a given political space. Control over the ruling elites is completely absent.

The nature of the transformation of power gives grounds to talk about revolutionary and evolutionary political processes.

The revolutionary type of political process develops in an environment of a revolutionary situation or close to it (according to V.I. Lenin: the “tops” cannot, and the “bottoms” do not want to live in the old way, high political activity of the masses). This type is characterized by a relatively rapid qualitative change in power, a complete revision of the state constitution; the use of both peaceful and violent means to overthrow the previous regime; electoral preferences give way to spontaneous arbitrary forms of mass political movements; at all levels of government there is a lack of time for making management decisions; the declining role of advisory and expert bodies, the increasing responsibility of political leaders; increasing conflict between the traditional and new elites.

The evolutionary type of political process is characterized by a gradual resolution of accumulated contradictions and rationalization of conflicts; separation of functions and roles of various political subjects; stability of the formed decision-making mechanisms; joint activities of the elite and the electorate, mutually controlling each other and having freedom of action within the framework of their acquired statuses; legitimacy of power, unity of socio-cultural values ​​and guidelines of managers and managed; consensus and the presence of constructive opposition; a combination of management with self-government and self-organization of political life.

From the point of view of the stability of the main forms of interrelation of social and political structures, the certainty of functions and relationships of subjects of power, stable and unstable political processes can be distinguished.

A stable political process is characterized by stable institutionalized forms of political mobilization and behavior of citizens, as well as functionally developed mechanisms for making political decisions. Such a process is based on a legitimate regime of government, an appropriate social structure, and the high efficiency of legal and cultural norms prevailing in society.

An unstable political process usually arises in a crisis as a manifestation of the need to change the political course. A number of factors can lead to this: a decline in production, social conflicts caused by changed conditions of vertical and horizontal mobility, complications in international relations. The instability of the political process is most clearly manifested in the sharp fluctuations in electoral preferences for development paths.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE KRASNOYARSK REGION

MOSCOW PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL INSTITUTE

ABSTRACT

subject: "Political Science"

on the topic: “The concept, types and varieties of the political process”

Performed:

studentNadezhina A.A.

specialty of State Medical University

extramural

Checked:

teacherKiselman A.V.

Kansk

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3

2. The concept of the political process..……………………….………………4

3. Structure and factors of the political process………………………….6

4. Features of the political process…………………………………..13

5. Typology of the political process……………………………………..12

6. Political changes and their types……………………………………..16

7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………20

8. List of references……………………………………..22

Introduction

The word "process" (from the Latin prossesus - continuation) means:

1) the dynamic, developing state of any object (let us immediately note that in this case the concept of “object” is infinite in its content, just as the universe itself is infinite);

2) a set of sequential actions to achieve a certain result. Thus, this concept is universal in nature, since it reflects the real and permanent state of nature and society.

The concept of “process” is widely used in all social sciences: in economic theory, history, philosophy, psychology, legal sciences, etc. This is understandable, since social processes in their totality constitute the FORM of the existence and functioning of society. For example, in the economic sphere, large-scale and constant processes are the production of goods and services, their distribution, exchange and consumption. Numerous and diverse social processes constantly take place in the social, cultural, and all other spheres of society. Of course, the political sphere of society is no exception. Moreover, political processes indicate that the political system exists, functions, develops and improves. In other words, they serve as a form of functioning of the political sphere (system) of society. The political life of society manifests itself in political processes.

In the broadest sense, political processes are a form of political activity of society. The exceptional diversity of this activity and the fact that each individual case has its own cause and purpose, varying degrees of predictability of the result and many other differences, make scientific research of political processes very difficult and give rise to a variety of points of view on the same issues. It can be said without exaggeration that if a competition is held for the highest level of debatability of the problems considered by political science, then the topic devoted to political processes will take first place. And, nevertheless, the degree of scientific development of political science problems in general and political processes in particular allows us to quite clearly see the varieties of political processes and classify them.

Concept of political process

Characteristics of politics as a process, i.e. the procedural approach allows us to see the special facets of interaction between subjects regarding state power. However, due to the fact that the scale of the political process coincides with the entire political sphere, some scientists identify it either with politics as a whole (R. Dawes), or with the entire set of behavioral actions of subjects of power, changes in their statuses and influences (C. Merriam ). Proponents of the institutional approach associate the political process with the functioning and transformation of institutions of power (S. Huntington). D. Easton understands it as a set of reactions of the political system to environmental challenges. R. Dahrendorf focuses on the dynamics of competition between groups for status and power resources, and J. Mannheim and R. Rich interpret it as a complex set of events that determines the nature of the activities of state institutions.

All these approaches in one way or another characterize the most important sources, states and forms of the political process. However, their most significant differences from other fundamental interpretations of the world of politics are that they reveal the constant variability of various features and characteristics of political phenomena. Focusing on the approaches considered, we can assume that the political process is a set of all dynamic changes in the behavior and relationships of subjects, in performed by them in the roles and functioning of institutions, as well as in all elements of the political space, carried out under the influence of external and internal factors. In other words, the category “political process” captures and reveals the real state of political objects, which develops both in accordance with the conscious intentions of the subjects and as a result of diverse spontaneous influences. In this sense, the political process excludes any predetermination or predetermination in the development of events and places emphasis on practical modifications of phenomena. Thus, the political process reveals the movement, dynamics, evolution of political phenomena, specific changes in their states in time and space.

Due to this interpretation of the political process, its central characteristic is change, which means any modification of the structure and functions, institutions and forms, constant and variable features, rates of evolution and other parameters of political phenomena. Changes mean transformation of properties that do not affect the basic structures and mechanisms of power. (for example, leaders, governments, individual institutions may change, but leading values, norms, methods of exercising power remain in the same quality), as well as modification of the supporting, basic elements, which together contribute to the achievement of a new qualitative state by the system.

Science has developed many ideas about the sources, mechanisms and forms of change. For example, Marx saw the main causes of political dynamics in the influence of economic relations, Pareto associated them with the circulation of elites, Weber with the activities of a charismatic leader, Parsons with the performance of various roles by people, etc. However, conflict is most often cited as the main source of political change.

Conflict is one of the possible options for interaction between political actors. However, due to the heterogeneity of society, which continuously generates people’s dissatisfaction with their position, differences in views and other forms of discrepancy in positions, as a rule, it is the conflict that underlies changes in the behavior of groups and individuals, the transformation of power structures, and the development of political processes. As a source of the political process, conflict is a type (and result) of competitive interaction between two or more parties (groups, states, individuals) challenging each other's distribution of power or resources.

Structure and factors of the political process

Some researchers believe that the political process is a spontaneous phenomenon of an irrational nature, depending on the will and character of people, especially political leaders. The significance of random phenomena and events is especially noticeable at the micro level. However, the general nature of political activity as goal achievement, as well as the institutional and other contexts of this activity (rules, certain forms and modes of behavior, traditions, dominant values, etc.) make the political process as a whole orderly and meaningful. Therefore, the political process is a logically unfolding sequence of interactions between factors.

Thus, the political process is a holistic phenomenon that can be structured and scientifically analyzed. The unpredictability and apparent inexplicability of certain events should be considered mainly as a consequence of the imperfection of the scientific apparatus and instruments.

The structure of the political process can be described by analyzing the interaction between various political factors, as well as by identifying the dynamics (main phases of the political process, changes in these phases, etc.) of this phenomenon. It is also of great importance to clarify the factors influencing the political process. Thus, the structure of the political process can be defined as a set of interactions between factors, as well as their logical sequence (“plot” of the political process). Each individual political process has its own structure and, accordingly, its own “plot”. Factors, the totality of their interactions, sequence, dynamics or plot, time units of measurement, as well as factors influencing the political process - parameters of the political process.

The main factors in the political process are political systems, political institutions (state, civil society, political parties, etc.), organized and unorganized groups of people, as well as individuals.

A political institution is a set of norms and rules, reproduced over time, as well as organizational potential that regulate political relations in a certain sphere of political life.

The main power institution, one of the main factors in the political process, is the state. Another important factor in the political process is civil society, which can also be considered a political institution. It should be noted that the state and civil society as political factors are formed in Europe and the United States around the modern period under the influence of ongoing modernization changes. It was from this time that the main institution of power in society emerged, which had a monopoly on coercive violence in a certain territory - the state. At the same time, under the influence of this process, the formation of a kind of antithesis of the state - civil society - occurs.

Smaller-scale factors in the political process include parties, interest groups, as well as individuals and groups of people.

Individuals and groups can participate in politics not only in an institutional form, for example by voting in elections, but also in non-institutional forms, in the form of spontaneous mass actions.

People have varying degrees of political activity. Many are not very active, but generally participate in most institutionalized processes. Some only observe from the sidelines, not only not taking an active part in political life, but also not participating in elections, not reading newspapers, etc. Others, usually a minority of citizens, on the contrary, take the most active part in political life.

To achieve group goals, individuals can create special groups that differ in varying degrees of institutionalization - from a random group formed at a rally to a highly organized, permanent one and operating according to the strict rules of an interest group. Not only the achievement of specific goals depends on the degree of institutionalization of political activity (it is, as a rule, the more effective, the higher the degree of institutionalization), but also the reproducibility, repeatability, regularity of any political relations, their consolidation in rules and norms.

Definition 1

The political process is one of the categories that allows you to analyze political phenomena as a certain set of ordered events that have occurred, are occurring and will occur.

The political process is controlled and streamlined through the adoption of legislative acts, as well as through the observance of certain political traditions.

Subjects of politics. Subjects of politics include people, political and public organizations that express the interests of certain groups and segments of the population and participate in the political process.

Policy objects. The objects of policy include other individuals, various public organizations that do not participate in the political process as independent players.

Typology of the political process

The process could be:

• internal political
• foreign policy.

The second type of political process involves the presence of external actors - heads of state, corporations, parties, etc., which influence the foreign policy process itself. At the same time, the actions of such subjects can also influence internal political processes. Depending on the characteristics of external problems, subjects make, including on the basis of foreign policy, decisions regarding internal social and economic policy.

Processes are also divided into

• voluntary
• controlled.

The first of them are characterized by subjects taking part in the political process, on the basis of their own will and not subject to any external influence. An example would be elections, in which participation is voluntary for both candidates and voters.

A controlled type of political process occurs under administrative control by government services, such as migration control over visitors

Another type of division is the open and shadow process. With an open type of political process, the subjects of the political process act openly and publicly, observing the legal norms of the laws established by them. In shadow mode, subjects act secretly, without revealing their non-public agreements to the general public. At the same time, they can demonstrate the openness and independence of the entire political process. The most significant example here is the elections taking place in most countries of the world.

Whether the process will be revolutionary or evolutionary depends on the conditions of the socio-economic, political and socio-cultural development of society and the state. If in a country the main source of legality is established legislative norms, if the government and society find a common language with each other, then an evolutionary path of development occurs. If there are urgent problems in the state that need to be solved as quickly as possible, but the political elite does not dare to change anything dramatically for some reason, and the opportunity to reach an agreement with the majority of the population is lost, then a revolutionary process arises, sweeping the old political elite out of its path. The most striking example is England in the 17th century, France in the 18th century, and Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, where revolutions took place that influenced the global historical process.

Processes can be:

• stable,
• volatile.

In the case of a stable political process, development is possible on the basis of already established and generally accepted legal norms. In the case of a volatile, unstable political process, there is a free interpretation of legislative norms and recourse to other sources of law.

The everyday political process is the constantly operating mechanisms of the political life of society and the state. An example is the course of the legislative process in any parliament.

Historical political process - it is associated with the achievements of certain historical events affecting the development of society, state, region and the world as a whole.

The structure of the political process.

The main subjects or actors of the political process are individuals who pursue their goals in the current political process.

The role of subjects can be states, political institutions, public organizations, groups of people and individuals.

Definition 2

A political institution is a form of representation of the interests of certain groups and organizations. Through them, their own views and ideas are transmitted. An example of a political institution can be the state, various public associations expressing political views (political parties), etc.

Let us note the features of the state as a form of political institution.

This is the presence of sole power by a controlled group of people. They constitute the state apparatus for governing the country. Its functions include coercion and control depending on the situation and opportunities. People who are members of the state apparatus have the authority to create and publish binding legal acts of a mandatory nature.

Also, only the state can act as the only and legitimate subject in the territories belonging to it.

Also, the power of the state extends to all citizens of its country, including foreign ones, who are in the possession of this state.

Object - the objects of the political process can be, in particular, the economy and economic problems that reflect the social status of the population.

Thus, the goal of political subjects is to establish economic life in the country, which can solve both social and political problems.

Methods of the political process

Elections – through elections to local municipalities, regional and state authorities and to the position of president, power is obtained into one’s own hands to carry out the necessary changes in the country, region, district.

Lawmaking is a means of exercising one’s powers in carrying out modernization and solving pressing problems of domestic and foreign policy.