Political system. Basic approaches to understanding the political system. Model of the political system by T. Parsons. Types of political systems. Structure, functions and types of political system According to Parsons' theory of the political system

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. 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.

I. Theory of the political system

1. The concept of the political system of society

2. D. Easton’s model of the political system

3. Concepts of political systems in the light of the theories of T. Parsons, K. Deutsch, G. Almond

II. Structure, functions and types of political system

1. Concept, characteristics of political subsystems

2. Functions of the political system

3. Types of political systems

III. The state in the political system of society

1. The concept of the state in the historical aspect and its modern understanding

2. The place and role of the state in the political system of society

3. Main features and functions of the state

4. Structure and typology of states

5. Political regime: concept, signs

6. Form of government

Conclusion

Literature

INVeating

Political science occupies a prominent place among other social sciences. Its high significance is determined by the important role of politics in the life of society.

Elements of political knowledge originated in the Ancient world. The understanding of political processes in Ancient Egypt, India, and China was unique. The “Laws of Hammurabi” that have come down to us (mid-18th century BC) indicate that political life was already relatively developed in that period: there was a corresponding administrative division of society, statehood, and legislation.

Political organizations of society represent a system that provides society with integrity and orderliness.

System(from the Greek “system” - a whole made up of parts, a connection) is a set of elements (objects, phenomena, views, knowledge, etc.) that are naturally connected with each other, representing a certain integral formation, unity.

Using a systems approach allows us to isolate political life from public life as an independent part or subsystem.

Human society is a set of social, economic, political, ethnic, legal, cultural systems.

The political system is a set of state, party and public bodies and organizations participating in the political life of the country. It is a complex formation that ensures the existence of society as a single organism, centrally controlled by political power. Depending on the time and place, the concept of a political system has different content, since the importance of the components of the political system changes according to the type of political regime. In addition, the political system is defined as the interactions through which material and spiritual values are authoritatively distributed in society.

Any system has the following characteristics:

· consists of many parts

parts make up a whole

· the system has boundaries Political Science Course of lectures Belogurova T.A. Electronic version page 28

In political science, there are various approaches to defining the political system. In this test, by analyzing the basic definitions, theories and concepts, you can try to determine what a political system is.

I. Political system theory

1. Understande political system of society

Political system - a set of political relations, political institutions, within the framework of which the political life of society takes place and state power is exercised.

The concept of “political system of society” became widespread in the twentieth century. Western scientists such as T. Parsons, G. Almond, D. Easton, and others contributed to the development of the theory of the political system. D. Easton was the first to propose the most systematic presentation of this theory in the works “Political System”, “Systemic Analysis of Political Life” etc. He presented the political system as a developing, self-regulating organism, flexibly responding to external impulses and consisting of a whole complex of components and subsystems. Its main purpose, according to D. Easton, is the authoritative distribution of values in society. D. Easton's ideas were subsequently widely used by most scientists who studied the problems of the political system of society.

Modern political science identifies various concepts of political systems. Webster's Dictionary mentions up to two dozen definitions of political system.

Some scholars present the political system as a complex of ideas underlying politics; others - as a system of interactions; still others - as a combination of certain elements, policy subjects, etc. All these definitions are characterized by a desire for a universal interpretation of political life, its independence from history and the social situation.

The basis of modern theories of political systems is the idea of politics as a kind of independent integrity. Along with economics, morality, and religion, politics is a special form of human activity. Political activity is carried out within the framework of a certain political system.

According to D. Easton, the political system is a developing and self-regulating organism, which consists of many parts that form a single whole. The system has an input to which impulses - demands or impulses - support are received from the outside. The output of the system is political decisions, on the basis of which political actions are carried out.

The political system can respond differently to demands coming from the population. If a democratic system uses them to improve work, then a totalitarian system suppresses them, creating the image of a powerful and infallible government.

2. Modelb political system of D. Easton

Further development of the theory of political systems followed the line of overcoming some of the shortcomings of D. Easton's model. D. Easton's theory considers the political system as a mechanism for the formation and functioning of power in society regarding the distribution of resources and values.

The systematic approach made it possible to more clearly define the place of politics in the life of society and identify the mechanism of social changes in it. Politics is a relatively independent sphere, the main meaning of which is the distribution of resources and the incentive to accept this distribution of values between individuals and groups.

In a whole series of works written in the 1950s and 60s. (“Political System” (1953), “Model for Political Research” (1960), “Systemic Analysis of Political Life” (1965)), D. Easton is trying to build a holistic theory based on the study of “direct” and “inverse” connections between the political system itself and its external environment, in a certain sense borrowing the cybernetic principles of the “black box” and “feedback”, and thereby using the systems approach and elements of general systems theory in the course of conceptualization. To build a theoretical model, Easton uses four basic categories: 1) “political system”; 2) “environment”; 3) “reaction” of the system to environmental influences; 4) “feedback”, or the impact of the system on the environment (Scheme 1).

Scheme 1. D. Easton’s model of the political system

In accordance with this model, the mechanism of functioning of the political system includes four phases. Firstly, this is the “input”, the impact of the external environment (social and non-social, natural) on the political system in the form of demands and support. For example, this could be the demand of the population to reduce income taxes while simultaneously providing legitimate support for the activities of the government as a whole. Secondly, the “conversion” (or transformation) of social demands into the preparation of alternative solutions that constitute a specific government response. Thirdly, this is “output”, decision-making and their implementation in the form of practical actions. And finally, fourthly, the results of government activities influence the external environment through a “feedback loop”. The political system is an "open system" receiving constant impulses from the environment. Its main goal is survival and maintaining the stability of the system through adaptation and adaptation to the environment. This mechanism is based on the principle of “homeostatic equilibrium”, according to which the political system, in order to maintain internal stability, must constantly respond to imbalances in its balance with the external environment.

Despite strong criticism of the systems approach in the late 1960s and early 1970s. D. Easton, in his new work “Analysis of Political Structure” (1990), continues the conceptual development of his model by studying the internal structure of the “black box”, that is, the political system, based on a critical analysis of the neo-Marxist structuralism of N. Poulantzas. “Political structure is like an invisible force reigning in the depths of the political system.” In general, various political structures, in his opinion, are formed from such elements as state bodies, parties and group associations, elite groups and mass forces, as well as from the political roles played by all of them . The “political structure” itself acts as an attributive characteristic of politics, which determines restrictions in the behavior of individuals and groups, as well as at the same time can contribute to the achievement of their goals. Easton identifies various types of political structures that make up the “stuffing” of the political system: highly organized and lowly organized, formal and informal, regime and differentiated institutions.

Disadvantages of the political system model by Easton are:

· excessive dependence on the “demand-support” of the population and underestimation of its independence;

· some conservatism, oriented towards maintaining stability and immutability of the system;

· insufficient consideration of the psychological and personal aspects of political interactions.

3. Concepts of political systems in the light of the theories of T. Parsons, K. Deutsch, G. Almond

Theory T. Parsons . It lies in the fact that society interacts as four subsystems: economic, political, social and spiritual. Each of these subsystems performs certain functions and responds to requirements that come from within or from the outside. Together they ensure the functioning of society as a whole.

Economic subsystem is responsible for meeting people's needs for consumer goods. Function political subsystem lies in identifying collective interests and mobilizing resources to achieve them.

Maintaining an established way of life, transferring norms, rules and values to new members of society, which become important factors in motivating their behavior, ensures social system.

The spiritual subsystem carries out the integration of society, establishes and maintains bonds of solidarity between its elements.

K. Deutsch's theory (cybernetic theory). He viewed the political system as cybernetic, in which politics was understood as a process of managing and coordinating the efforts of people to achieve their goals. Political science (lecture notes) M.: PRIOR Publishing House 1999 Oganesyan A.A. Art. 31

The formulation of goals and their correction is carried out by the political system on the basis of information about the situation of society and its attitude to these goals: about the distance that remains to the goal; about the results of previous actions. The functioning of a political system depends on the quality of the constant flow of information coming from the external environment and information about its own movement.

K. Deutsch, in his main work “The Nerves of Control: Models of Political Communication and Control” (1963), defines the political system as a network of communications and information flows. Within the framework of the developed information-cybernetic approach, K. Deutsch makes a bold attempt to interpret political life through the prism of cybernetic analysis and communication mechanisms. Recalling that both the Latin “gubernare” (from which the English “government” is derived) and the Greek “kubernan” (respectively the English “cybernetics”) come from the same semantic basis associated with the “art of management”, and originally with nautical navigation, ship control. According to Deutsch, the government (as a subject of public administration) mobilizes the political system by regulating information flows and communication interactions between the system and the environment, as well as individual blocks within the system itself.

K. Deutsch develops in “The Nerves of Control” a very complex and echeloned model of the functioning of the political system as a set of information flows, built on the principle of feedback. In a highly simplified version (reflecting only its fundamental structure), it looks like this (Scheme 2).

Scheme 2. Model of the political system by K. Deutsch

His model of the political system identifies four blocks associated with various phases of information and communication flows: 1) receiving and selecting information; 2) processing and evaluation of information; 3) decision making, and finally, 4) implementation of decisions with feedback. Firstly, the political system receives information through the so-called “receptors” (foreign policy and domestic policy), which include information services (government and private), public opinion research centers (government reception offices, intelligence networks, etc.). Here the selection, systematization and primary analysis of the received data takes place. Secondly, in the next phase, the selected new information is subject to processing within the “memory and values” block, where, on the one hand, it is compared with existing, old information, and on the other, it is assessed through the prism of values, norms and stereotypes. For example, information about the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1979 was naturally assessed differently in NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. Thirdly, after receiving a final assessment of the degree of compliance of the political situation with its priorities and goals, the government (as a decision-making center) makes an appropriate decision to regulate the current state of the system. And finally, the so-called “effectors” (executive organs, etc.) in the last phase implement decisions, and then their results serve as new information through “feedback” for “receptors” that bring the system to a new cycle of functioning.

K. Deutsch identifies three main types of communications in the political system: 1) personal, informal communications (face-to-face), such as, for example, personal contact between a candidate for deputy and a voter in a relaxed atmosphere; 2) communications through organizations, when contact with the government is carried out through parties, pressure groups, etc., and 3) communications through the media, print, electronic, the role of which is constantly increasing in post-industrial society. The concept of the political system of K. Deutsch was subjected to no less criticism than the approaches of D. Easton, although at the same time it introduced into the analysis such an important and active component of power relations as information flows and communication connections.

A different structural-functional approach to the interpretation of political systems was proposed by the American political scientist G. Almond; the model has some similarities with the “Estonian” theoretical construct we have already discussed above, although they have significant differences (Diagram 3).

In his model of the political system, G. Almond identifies three analytical levels (or blocks), connecting groups of functions (or various functions) of the macrosystem with the activities of individual institutions, groups and even individuals included in the systemic organization as its elements. The first block, the so-called “process level” (process functions), is associated with the “input”, that is, with the impact of the environment on the political system. This is manifested in the implementation by political institutions of certain functions, and in a dynamic, procedural context: 1) articulation interests (group associations); 2) aggregation of interests (party); 3) developing a political course (parliament); 4) policy implementation (executive administration); 5) arbitration (judicial authorities).

Scheme 3. G. Almond’s model of the political system http://www.vuzlib.net

The interaction of the social environment with the institutional system thus constitutes the dynamics of the political process. At the same level, Almond essentially “converts” the interests of individuals and groups into the corresponding decisions and actions of government bodies.

In the second block, the “system level” (system functions), society adapts to the political system, on which the prospects for its stable reproduction or, conversely, radical change depend. First, it is the function of socializing individuals to the standards and values of the political system, associated with the social institutions of the church, family and school. Secondly, this is the function of recruiting supporters or opponents of the system, active and passive citizens, including those who will then professionally engage in political activities. And finally, thirdly, this is the function of political communication, which is provided through the information, propaganda and manipulative work of the media and other organizations. During the transition period, the old political system weakens primarily due to the dysfunctional nature of the old institutions, which do not provide adequate socialization, recruitment and effective propaganda.

And in the final third block, the “level of management” (policy functions), the last tasks in this cycle related to the management of collective resources of society are solved: 1) their “extraction” (or development), as happens with the collection of taxes in the country; 2) their structural regulation (transfer from one social sphere and economic sector to another), and finally, 3) their distribution (distribution of social benefits and pensions, organization of economic events, etc.). Further, through feedback, the “cycle” closes, as in D. Easton’s model, since the results of the activities of the “control block”, the regulation of public resources, must somehow change the social environment, which will ultimately strengthen or weaken the stability of the management, that is, the political , systems. With all the scope and completeness of G. Almond’s theoretical model, it was also criticized for ethnocentrism and staticism, since in fact it only did a good job of demonstrating the stable operation of the American political system in the post-war years, resembling a kind of “water cycle in nature,” a cyclical mechanism.

It is interesting that this concept of the political “cycle”, the cyclical functioning of the political system, was especially widespread in the USA and Europe in the 1950s and 60s, and, paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, it was no less popular in the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s. 's in the USSR. What is the reason for the strange popularity of the idea of political development in a circle, as ancient as the world, of “circulation” as a cyclical functioning? In the 50s in the USA and Europe, post-war socio-economic development and the functioning of Western regimes were characterized by a certain degree of stability and stability. Some liberalization of totalitarian, autocratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s also gave a certain basis and even optimism to consider the functioning of the socialist political system and the Soviet model as something like “perpetual motion.” But already in the late 1960s and especially in the first half of the 70s, even the “founding fathers” themselves of the system-wide and functional theories of the political system began to revise some of its foundations under the influence of the rapid processes of political development unfolding in the Third World. For example, G. Almond proposes to combine functional political theory with a dynamic developmental approach, thereby shifting the emphasis from the survival and reproduction of the political system to its transformation and change.

II. Structure, functions and types of political system

The approach of political scientists to the structure of the political system is varied. However, there are certain elements highlighted by representatives of various theories.

1. Pconcept, characterheristics of political subsystems

As part of the political system of society, four large subsystems function in close interconnection: institutional, regulatory, communicative and political-ideological.

The institutional subsystem includes political institutions and, above all, forms of political government (republic, monarchy), political regimes (democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian, etc.), legislative, executive and judicial authorities, political parties and movements, numerous public organizations, electoral system, etc. This subsystem plays a key role in the political system. It is here that the normative and legal framework is created, defining the conditions, possibilities and boundaries of the functioning of the entire political system.

The regulatory subsystem, based on the political and legal norms accepted in society, reflected in the country's constitution and other legislative acts, regulates the formation and activities of political institutions and the functioning of the political system of society as a whole. The initial basis on which this system is based is not only political and legal norms, but also national, historically established customs and traditions, political views, beliefs, and principles that influence the political system of society.

The communicative subsystem is a set of relationships that arise in the process of functioning of the political system of society. This is primarily a relationship regarding the management of society. The subjects of these relations are political institutions and organizations, political leaders, representatives of the political elite, and citizens. These are also relationships associated with the struggle for political power: its conquest, retention, implementation. http://www.politicalscience.boom.ru/structure.htm

The political-ideological subsystem includes political concepts, theories, and views. They underlie the creation and development of socio-political institutions, political and legal norms, improvement of political relations and the entire political system.

In domestic political and sociological literature a political system is usually defined as a set of state and socio-political organizations, associations, legal and political norms, principles of organization and exercise of political power in society. Most political scientists hold similar positions. As follows from the above definition, the core of the political system of society is political power, regarding the use of which various state and socio-political institutions, norms, patterns and standards of political activity, etc., are formed and function around it. Taking into account the above, the structure of the political system is a multi-level education consisting of several subsystems.

First of these is a set of subjects - bearers of political power, in the role of which are diverse political communities of people. These include not only the political elite, the class of state bureaucracy, but communities of deputies at all levels, as well as, of course, the people of every country, who in a democracy are the only source of state power in society.

Second the place belongs to the institutional subsystem, consisting of numerous macro, micro and mesopolitical institutions, organizations and institutions of political power. The most influential of them are such state institutions as the Government, Parliament, Supreme Court, as well as non-state institutions - political parties, socio-political organizations, etc.

Third is a regulatory and legal subsystem, which includes all the variety of laws, codes, by-laws that regulate the life of subjects, institutions of the political system and society as a whole. A special place here is occupied by the Constitution (Basic Law), which determines the type and character of the entire political system and state system of the country.

Fourth, a special place is occupied by the cultural-ideological subsystem, which includes various types of political culture and political ideology, the carriers of which are political subjects and government institutions. Some countries practice state ideology, which serves as the doctrinal basis of the state. The main types of political culture and political ideology will be discussed below.

Fifth the subsystem is the communicative one, which includes a set of relationships and interconnections between the subjects and institutions of the political system of society. Of particular importance in this subsystem are the balanced relationships between the main branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial.

2. Functions of the political system

Thus, the political system of society is not a simple sum of various institutions and institutions of power, but an integral entity that has an ordered internal structure and performs appropriate functions. On the issue of the functions of power in foreign political science, the dominant opinion is that of D. Easton and G. Almond, according to which the regulatory, extraction, distribution and reaction functions of the political system are distinguished. In domestic political science, there are several classifications of the functions of the political system. Summarizing existing approaches, we can highlight the following main functions:

1. The function of articulation and aggregation of the interests of different groups of citizens of the state. The political system is the arena for the representation and implementation of these interests by means of political power.

2. Managerial function related to the political management of the economy, social and other spheres of society.

3. The function of developing a political strategy and tactics for the socio-economic development of society.

4. The function of political socialization of citizens and society as a whole.

5. The function of legitimizing political power, associated with the justification, recognition and acceptance of the existing political regime by citizens of the state.

6. Mobilization and consolidation function, expressed in maintaining the unity and cohesion of civil society on the basis of national ideas, priorities and goals.

In modern science, the concept of a political system has two interrelated meanings. In the first of them, the political system is an artificially created, theoretical, tool that allows one to identify and describe the systemic properties of various political phenomena. This category does not reflect political reality itself, but is a means of systemic analysis of politics. It is applicable to any relatively integral political entity: party, state, trade union, political culture, etc. Each of these entities is a specific political system http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/ .

The use of the term “political system” in its first, methodological meaning in relation to the entire political sphere, presupposes its consideration as an integral organism that is in complex interaction with the environment - the rest of society through “input” - channels of influence of the environment on the political system and “output” is the reverse effect of the system on the environment.

The political system performs a number of functions in relation to the environment. This is the definition of goals and objectives of the company's program of activities; mobilization of resources to achieve set goals; integration of all elements of society through the promotion of common goals and values, the use of power, etc.; mandatory distribution of scarce values for all citizens.

Some authors further detail the list of functions of the political system. Thus, G. Almond describes its four functions of “input” - political socialization; engaging citizens to participate; articulation of their interests; aggregation of interests and three functions of “conclusion” - development of norms (laws); their application; monitoring their compliance. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/

Some other functions of the political system of society are also highlighted. In different countries, the relationship between the above functions develops differently. Depending on this, different types of political systems are formed.

3. Types of political system

In the political science literature, there are different approaches to determining the types of political systems. Let's consider the five main types of political systems in a generalized form: 1. Slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist system. The basis of typology is socio-economic formations, the authors of the concepts are Marx, Engels, Lenin. 2. Democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. The basis of the typology is the degree of democracy of power and the presence of mechanisms for resolving contradictions; the author is Robert Dahl. 3. Anglo-American, European continental, pre-industrial, totalitarian. The basis of typology is political culture (homogeneous or heterogeneous), author Gabriel Almond. 4. Administrative-command, competitive, socio-conciliatory. The typology is based on methods of managing society, author V.E. Chirkin. 5. Etacratic, democratic, where the basis of the typology is the place and role of the state in the political system. The authors of this typology are: V.V. Radaev, O.N. Shkaratan.

From the above it is clear that political systems can be studied from different positions. Does this have not only theoretical, but also practical significance?

The typologization of political systems carries a methodological and applied load. Thus, the first theory states that political systems exist and function only within the framework of class society, and with the withering away of classes they lose their political character. If the second part of this theory is completely rejected today, then the first remains valid. However, the preference for the class approach, when analyzing the modern political system, significantly limits ideas about it as a whole, since in the political system, along with class characteristics and traits, inter-class, general social, national, group and universal characteristics are also reflected.

The most popular in modern conditions is the concept of R. Dahl: political systems are most often characterized as democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. He proposes three types of political system, which are distinguished on the basis of the specific nature of the political regime. We are talking about democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian political systems. In addition, one can also identify a transitional form of a political system associated with its transformation from totalitarian to authoritarian and democratic, and vice versa.

G. Almond's typology of political systems is no less important. The interaction of different types of political systems is carried out more fruitfully if the characteristics of diverse cultures are taken into account when characterizing them. This opens up additional channels for effective cooperation and partnership between different political systems. http://society.polbu.ru/sadriev_politsystem/ch03_i.html

It is hardly possible to draw a line under the existing theories of typologization of political systems. New reasons may well emerge for identifying differences between them, in accordance with the changing conditions of their emergence and functioning.

What underlies the replacement of one type of political system with another? The first place should be given to a change in forms of ownership (ownership of a slave, of land, of the means of production, of the state as a whole, equal right to the existence and development of various forms of ownership); changes in the state form of government and changes in ideologies.

So, the type of political system is characterized by the relationship and interaction of its structural elements. The nature of the political system, as well as the pace of development of society as a whole, depend on their place, role, content and direction. Any political system needs recognition from society. This recognition may be active or passive, open or hidden, conscious or unconscious, voluntary or forced.

Various political phenomena are inextricably interconnected and constitute a certain integrity, a social organism that has relative independence. This property reflects the concept of a political system.

Being extremely complex phenomena rich in content, political systems can be classified on various grounds. Thus, depending on the type of society, they are divided into traditional, modernized democracies and totalitarian (R. Aron, W. Rostow, etc.), according to the nature of interaction with the environment - into open and closed: http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/ closed political systems have weak connections with the external environment, are insensitive to the values of other systems and are self-sufficient; open systems actively exchange resources with the outside world, assimilate the values of advanced systems, are mobile and dynamic. * (“Political science” lecture notes. M.: PRIOR Publishing House, 1999. On political cultures and their expressions in forms of organization of power - in English American; continental European; pre-industrial and partially industrial;

There are many other, including more complex typologies of political systems. One of the fairly simple, widespread, and most importantly, quite deep classifications is the division of political systems into totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic. The criterion for distinguishing them is the political regime - the nature and methods of relationship between government, society (people) and individuals (citizens). In the most general form for* totalitarian political system is characterized by:

Denial or significant restriction of individual rights and freedoms, establishment of strict state control over all aspects of social life;

Blurring the line between personal and public, individual and public, mixing freedom with power;

Breaking down by the all-powerful political mechanism of the autonomy of all social relations;

A radical limitation of the individual's initiative, his complete dependence on the state machine in solving almost all political problems.

The use of strong, tough means of solving social and political problems, relying on repressive bodies in the activities of the authorities;

Restriction of political freedoms of citizens, suppression of the opposition;

Centralization of management, suppression of regional and personal autonomy;

Concentrating the functions of managing society in one person or a narrow social stratum.

Traits democratic systems:

Majority rule;

Freedom of criticism and opposition to the government;

Protection of the minority and its loyalty to the political community;

The right of the people to participate in public affairs, respect and protection of human rights.

Moreover, if the individual has autonomy, rights and freedoms, and is recognized as the most important source of power, then liberal democracy takes place. If the power of the majority is unlimited and seeks to control the public and personal lives of citizens, then democracy becomes totalitarian.

Authoritarian and totalitarian political systems are also heterogeneous. So, depending on who - one person or a group of people - is the source of power, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes can be autocratic (one person in power) or group-cratic (aristocratic, oligarchic, ethnocratic, etc.).

This classification reflects ideal types of political systems that differ significantly from those existing in real life. And yet, totalitarianism, authoritarianism and democracy in one form or another and in varying degrees of approximation to the ideal are widely represented in the history of mankind and in the modern world.

Depending on historical experience and traditions, national types of political systems are distinguished.

According to the dominant methods of managing and resolving political contradictions, systems are divided into command(focused on the use of coercive management methods), competitive(managerial tasks are solved during the confrontation between various political forces) and socio-conciliatory(aimed at maintaining social harmony and overcoming conflicts

III. The state in the political system of society

1. The concept of the state in the historical aspectwho and its modern understanding

Historically, the state can be considered the first political organization. It is natural that the term “politics” and words derived from it originate from the word “polis”, which the ancient Greeks used to designate their city-states. For different peoples, states arose in different ways, at different stages of development, in different historical periods of time. But common to all of them were such factors as the improvement of tools of labor and its division, the emergence of market relations and property inequality, the formation of social groups, estates, classes, and people’s awareness of common and group (class) interests. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/

The state became the first, but not the last and not the only political organization of class society. Objectively established human relations gave rise to new political forms of movement of social matter. History shows that, along with the state and within its framework, various kinds of non-state associations arise, reflecting the interests of certain classes, estates, groups, nations and taking part in the political life of society. For example, Aristotle mentions the mountain, plain and coastal parts of the slave city of Athens. In a feudal society, various associations of owners - communities, guilds, guilds - had a significant influence on the exercise of political power. A special role in this regard was played by church institutions, which acted as the organizational and ideological support of the ruling classes. In a bourgeois and socialist society, in addition to the state, there are various kinds of political parties, trade unions, women's and youth public associations, organizations of industrialists and farmers, reflecting in their activities the interests of certain social forces and influencing politics. And yet the state occupies a central place in the political and social life of any country. This is due to the following.

1. The state acts primarily as an alternative to the struggle between various social groups, layers, classes with their conflicting interests. It prevented the self-destruction of human society at the earliest stage of our civilization and is preventing it today. In this sense, it “gave” life to the political system of society in its modern understanding.

At the same time, none other than the state, throughout the history of mankind, has drawn its subjects thousands of times into internecine and regional armed conflicts, wars, including two world wars. In some cases (as an aggressor), the state was and is an instrument of certain political groupings that reflect the interests of the ruling strata and classes of society. In other cases (as a defender) it often expresses the interests of the whole people.

2. The state can be considered as an organizational form, as a union of people united to live together. Each of the members of the “state community” is interested in its existence, since personal independence and freedom in communication with fellow citizens, protection of family and property, and a guarantee of security against invasion of personal life from the outside are ensured by the state. As a citizen, an individual acquires stable primary political qualities, which become the basis for his participation in the political life of the country, in the activities of socio-political associations and movements, political parties, etc. In other words, first of all, through the state, the individual is “included” in the political system of society .

At the same time, between the state and individual citizens (regardless of what class they belong to) there is a set of contradictions, which is generally characterized as one of the main internal contradictions of the political system of society. These are contradictions between democracy and bureaucracy in the sphere of legislative and executive power, between the trends in the development of self-government and the limited possibilities for its implementation, etc. These contradictions sharply intensify when the state pursues a pronounced class, national, racial policy in relation to citizens who do not belong to politically dominant social groups.

3. Among the factors that determined the emergence of the state, the social and class stratification of society occupies an important place. It follows that the state acts as a political organization of the economically dominant class.

4. The state became the first result of the political activity of people organized in some way and representing the interests of certain social groups and strata. This determined his claims to the universality of the coverage of political phenomena, and the signs of territoriality and public power made real the importance of the state as a form of political community of various social and national formations, as well as various kinds of organizations and parties expressing their interests. Statehood is a form of existence of a class society. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/

5. The state is the most important integrating factor, linking the political system and civil society into a single whole. Due to its social origin, the state takes care of common affairs. It is forced to deal with general social problems - from the construction of homes for the elderly, communications, transport arteries to energy and environmental support for future generations of people. As the main owner of the means of production, land, and its subsoil, it finances the most capital-intensive branches of science and production and bears the burden of defense costs.

For the political system of society, the sovereign nature of state power is of great consolidating importance. Only the state has the right to speak inside and outside the country on behalf of the people and society. The entry of the political system of a particular society into the world political community will largely depend on the implementation of the sovereign qualities of the state.

6. The political system due to the mobility of economic, social-class relations, and ideological variability! and the psychological aura is in constant motion. All its elements and components work as if equally, linking and coordinating the interests of social groups, developing political decisions. When emergency social situations arise (natural disasters occur, the form of government or political regime changes), the state plays a special role in resolving them. Moreover, in this case we are talking not just about the state, but about its substantial manifestation - state power. Only legitimate state power can ensure a relatively painless and bloodless transition to a new state of society.

2. The place and role of the state in the political systemsociety

When characterizing the role and place of the state in the political system of society, one should proceed, first of all, from the fact that it - in any country and at any stage of development of society - acts as the most massive and most comprehensive organization. It unites or strives to unite around itself various segments of the population.

In constitutions and other legislative acts it seeks to define itself as a community of the entire people, an association acting for the common good. This desire was enshrined in the 1977 USSR Constitution. (Article 1 “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the entire people, expressing the will and interests of workers, peasants, intelligentsia, workers of all nations and nationalities of the country”), and in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 (Article 2 “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is the duty of the state,” Article 3 “... the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people,” and in the US Constitution (“We, the people of the United States.” , for the purpose of forming a more perfect Union, establishing justice, preserving the domestic tranquility, organizing the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Similar desires to express the will of the entire people manifested themselves in the constitutional acts of other states. In this case, the “people” is often only a social background, behind which the real state power belonging to a certain class, social stratum or ruling group is hidden. In reality, it is those in whose hands state power is located that are the real creators of domestic and foreign policy.

The special place and role of the state in the political system of society is also determined by the fact that it has enormous material and financial resources in its hands. In some countries it is the monopoly owner of fixed assets and instruments of production, which was especially clearly manifested in the internal political activities of the former socialist countries. Thus, in the USSR, the land, its subsoil, forests and waters, as well as the main means of production in industry, banks, communications, basic housing, etc., and other property necessary for the implementation of state functions were the exclusive property of the state.

The main difference between the state and other political institutions of society is, first of all, that it has the highest power in society. His power is universal: it extends to the entire population and public parties of a given country; it rests on prerogatives - the power to abolish any other power, as well as on the presence of such means of influence that no other public organization except it has at its disposal. Such means of influence include legislation, officials, the army, the court, etc.

Political parties and mass public organizations may also have their own permanent apparatus, which is designed to ensure their normal functioning. However, unlike the state apparatus, they do not have in their structure, for example, such bodies that are designed to protect the legal system operating in society - police, courts, prosecutors, lawyers, etc., functioning in the interests of all members of society.

Among the various elements of the political system, the state also stands out in that it has an extensive system of legal means that give it the opportunity to manage many sectors of the economy and influence all social relations. Possessing appropriate powers, various government bodies not only issue legal and individual acts within their competence, but also ensure their implementation. This is achieved in different ways - through education, encouragement and persuasion, constant monitoring of the exact implementation of these acts, and the use of state coercive measures when necessary.

Finally, the state has sovereignty. The sovereignty of political power acts as one of the signs of the state. Its content lies in the supremacy of this power in relation to all citizens and non-governmental organizations formed by them within the country and in the independent behavior of the country (state) in the external arena.

So, a state is a political community that has a certain structure, organization of political power and management of political processes in a certain territory.

The state is the most important institution of the political system. The significance of the state is determined by the maximum concentration in its hands of power and resources, allowing it to effectively and decisively influence social change. Political science (lecture notes) M.: PRIOR Publishing House 1999 Oganesyan A.A. Art 46

Since its inception, the state has been interpreted ambiguously in the history of political thought. A variety of reasons have been put forward for the emergence and existence of the state: in theological theory it is Divine power; in contract - the power of reason, consciousness; in psychological - factors of the human psyche; in organic - socio-economic factors; in the theory of violence - military-political factors. The literature identifies factors influencing the formation of a state: geographical, ethnic, demographic, information. The emergence of statehood is due to reasons, among which it is hardly possible to single out any one as the main, determining one. The state arises, exists and develops as a result of the complication of socio-economic life, as an instrument for regulating the joint satisfaction of the interests of society, groups, classes, social strata, and individuals.

The functioning of the political system of society is carried out on the basis of legal norms. All organizational structures of the political system operate within the framework and on the basis of laws, which form the legal foundation of state and public life.

3.Basicfunctions and characteristics of the state

Of course, these features do not exhaust all the specifics of the state as an element of the political system of society against the background of all its other structural elements. But they give a general idea of the state, as well as the factors that determine the place and role of the state in the political system of society.

Politics in the context of systems analysis

The creation of a holistic understanding of processes in the political sphere, its relationships with the non-political world led to the development of a systems approach in political science. Systems theory was a reaction to the extreme empiricism that dominated social science, to the practice of “split” consideration of certain elements of political life (for example, official government structures).

Systems theory originated in biology in the 20s of the XX century. Ludwig von Bertalanffy studied the cell as a “set of interdependent elements,” i.e., as a system associated with the external environment. These elements are “so interconnected that if you change one element, the others will also change and, therefore, the whole set will change.”

It took decades before the systems approach was used in the social sciences. IN sociology the use of a systematic approach is associated with the name T.Parsons. Instead of the crude empiricism that dominated sociology, T.Parsons entered social action theory. Social action includes the entire diversity of human behavior, motivated and directed by the meanings that he discovers in the external world, takes into account and to which he reacts.

Human actions as a response to a set of signals received by him from the environment are never isolated and simple, but act as a set of actions of several subjects, i.e., as an interaction. Any action can be considered at the same time both as a set of individual actions and as an integral part of a broader whole. Hence, action system represents a complex of interactions between the subject and objects, objects with which he enters into certain relationships.

For its existence and self-sustainment, the system must function. Any system according to T.Parsons, necessarily includes four functions that serve to satisfy its basic needs:

adaptation function, i.e., establishing connections between the system and the environment. By adapting to the environment, the system draws from it the resources it needs; transforms the external system in accordance with its “needs”, giving it its own resources in return;

goal achievement function, consisting in defining the goals of the system, as well as mobilizing energy and resources to achieve it;

integration function, aimed at maintaining coordination of the relationships between the constituent elements of the system. Such coordination helps protect the system from radical changes and shocks;

latent function, aimed both at maintaining the orientation of subjects towards the norms and values of the system, and at providing the necessary motivation for its supporters.

Society T.Parsons considers it as a social system consisting of four interacting subsystems. Each subsystem, in turn, also performs certain functions. For example, the function of adapting society to the needs for consumer goods is carried out by the economic subsystem. The function of achieving the system's goals, manifested in the desire for collective action, mobilizing subjects and resources to achieve them, is performed by politics. The function of socialization institutions (family, education system, etc.) is to transmit norms, rules and values, which become important factors in motivating the social behavior of subjects. Finally, the function of integrating society, establishing and maintaining ties of solidarity between its elements is carried out by the institutions of “social community” (morality, law, court, etc.).

The political subsystem includes, according to T.Parsons, three institutions: leadership, authorities and regulation. Each of the named institutes also performs certain tasks. functions. Thus, the institution of leadership ensures the occupation of a certain position, which prescribes the obligation to take initiatives and involve community members in achieving common goals. The institution of regulation contributes to the publication of norms and rules that create a legal basis for social control.

However, the model T.Parsons too abstract to explain all the processes occurring V political sphere. In addition, being focused on the stability and sustainability of the political system, it does not include cases of dysfunction, conflicts, and social tension. Nevertheless, the theoretical model T.Parsons has had a significant impact on research in sociology and political science.

Systems theory introduced to political science D.Easton. In a number of his works, especially in the monograph “System Analysis of Political Life” (1965), he examined the conditions necessary for the self-survival of a political system and analyzed four categories: the political system, its environment, reaction and feedback. Using some provisions of the structural-functional approach of T. Parsons, D.Easton concluded that “the systemic analysis of political life is based on the concept of “a system immersed in the environment and subject to influences from it... Such an analysis assumed that a system, in order to survive, must have the ability to respond.”

Reacting to certain objects and objects, subjects and groups enter into interactions based on the meanings that they attach to these objects and objects. “Political interactions in society constitute a system of behavior,” noted D.Easton and emphasized that this is why political life should be considered “as a system of behavior embedded in the environment and thereby subject to its influence, but with the ability to respond to it.”

Since D.Easton defined politics as “the volitional distribution of values,” to the extent that he viewed the political system as a set of interactions through which values are authoritatively distributed in society. Hence, political system,under.Easton,is a set of political interactions in a given society. Its main purpose consists in the distribution of resources and inducement to accept this distribution as obligatory for the majority of members of society.

Being an “open” and adaptive system of behavior, the political system is influenced by the external environment. With the help of regulatory mechanisms, it develops responses, regulates its behavior, transforms and changes its external structure, adapting to external conditions.

The exchange and interaction of the political system with the environment is carried out according to the “input-output” principle. D.Easton distinguishes two types of “input”: requirement And support. Requirement can be defined as an opinion addressed to authorities regarding the desirable or undesirable distribution of values in society. For example, workers' demands to increase the minimum wage; teachers' demands for increased funding for education. Demands tend to weaken the political system.

Support, on the contrary, it means strengthening the political system. It covers all positions and all behavior options that are favorable to the system. Forms of manifestation of support can be considered the correct payment of taxes, fulfillment of military duty, respect for state institutions, devotion to the ruling leadership, holding demonstrations in support of the regime, and expressions of patriotism.

Support ensures relative stability of authorities that transform the requirements of the environment (subjects, groups) into appropriate decisions, and also creates conditions for the use of social technologies adequate to the requirements of the moment, with the help of which the transformation is carried out. Support is essential in achieving agreement among members of a political community. The main objects of support in the political system D.Easton called the political regime, power and political community.

According to the objects, he identified three types of support: 1) regime support, understood as a set of stable expectations, including values (for example, freedom, pluralism, property) on which the political system, norms (constitutional, legal) and power structures are based; 2) support for the authorities, that is, all - both formal and informal - political institutions (for example, charismatic leaders) that perform power functions; 3) political community support, that is, a group of persons connected among themselves by the division of political labor.

The role of the “input” is to influence the environment on the system, resulting in a reaction at the “output”, i.e., authoritative decisions on the distribution of values. The system's response to impulses received from the outside occurs in the form of decisions and actions. Political decisions may take the form of new laws, statements, regulations, subsidies, etc. The implementation of decisions is ensured by the force of law. Political actions do not have such a compulsory nature, but they have a significant impact on various aspects of public life. They take the form of measures to regulate and solve current problems: economic, environmental, social, etc., accordingly, we are talking about economic, environmental, social, etc. policy.

Consequently, the political system and the external environment are in a relationship of deep interdependence. The political system must transform incoming demands and support into appropriate decisions and actions, which is possible only if it has the ability to self-regulate. The political process turns out to be a process of transforming information, transferring it from “input” to “output”: responding to environmental signals, the political system simultaneously brings about changes in society and maintains stability. Moreover, if variability appears in the activity of the system as a private functional characteristic, then survival and self-preservation are fundamentally important features.

However, focusing on interaction with the external environment, D.Easton, Essentially, he ignored the internal life of the political system, its internal structure, which allows maintaining dynamic balance in society.

The ability of a political system to carry out transformations in society and maintain stability depends on the specialization of the roles and functions of political institutions that constitute a set of interdependent elements. Each element of integrity (be it the state or parties, pressure groups, elites, law) performs a vital function for the entire system. Consequently, the system can be considered from the point of view of not only conservation, change, adaptation, but also the interaction of structures that perform certain functions. Each structure implements a function important to the integrity, and together they ensure the satisfaction of the basic needs of the system.

Functionalismas a method of analysis introduced into sociology by an English researcher G.Spencer, who drew an analogy between the structure and development of biological and social organisms (meaning society). Both organisms evolve due to increasing diversification (diversity) and specialization of organs and parts. As a result, the number of “social structures” and “social functions” is growing in society. Each structure performs a specific function, forming an inextricable integrity with others. U G.Spencer's concept« structure» identified with the concept« organization» However, subsequently the concept of “structure” was clarified. Initially, “structure” was interpreted as a set of statuses, roles, stratified social groups interconnected by functional relationships, and then as a set of roles (expected behavior in accordance with the status of an individual or group).

The main contribution to the development of functionalism belongs to the American political scientist G.Almond. He examined the negative consequences of the practice of transferring Western systems to developing countries in the 50s and 60s. Having found themselves in a socio-economic and cultural-religious environment different from that in the West, political institutions were unable to fulfill many functions, and above all, achieve stable development of society. Based on the analysis of such practices, they began to develop comparative studies political systems headed by G.Aamond. In assessing various political systems, it was important to identify a list of basic functions that contributed to effective social development.

Comparative analysis political systems involved a transition from the study of formal institutions to the consideration of specific manifestations of political behavior. Based on this, G.Almond and D.Powell defined the political system as a set of roles and their interactions, carried out not only by government institutions, but also by all structures in their political aspect. Thus, under structure they understood set of interrelated roles.

Following the position D.Easton about a “system immersed in an environment” that maintains numerous connections and role-based exchanges with it, G.Almond and D.Powell identified sufficient parameters of its functioning. The latter are determined by the ability of the political system to effectively carry out three groups of functions: a) functions of interaction with the external environment; b) functions of interconnection within the political sphere; c) functions of saving and adapting the system.

The transition of developed countries to information technology, marked by the massive introduction of computer technology into various spheres of society, contributed to the use of mechanistic models in the analysis of social systems. Cybernetics noted the similarity of human behavior patterns with the “behavior” of a machine. It is due to the fact that self-organizing systems must have the ability to independently respond to information and change their behavior or location. If the changes are effective and the system achieves its goal, then some of its energy or internal tension is usually reduced.

The effectiveness of the system depends on two variables: a) on the timely and complete transmission of information and b) on the mechanisms for issuing commands that direct and control actions. The first one likened the political system to a cybernetic machine, was an American political scientist TO.Deutsch. He viewed the political system in the context "communication approach". Politics TO.Deutsch understood as the process of managing and coordinating the efforts of people to achieve their goals. The formulation of goals and their correction are carried out by the political system based on information about the position of society in relation to these goals; about the distance remaining to the target; about the results of previous actions.

Consequently, the functioning of the political system depends on the quality and volume of information coming from the external environment and information about its own movement. Based on these two streams of information, political decisions are made that involve subsequent actions towards the desired goal. Not by chance TO.Deutsch likened control to the process of piloting (“driving”): determining a course (for example, a ship) based on information about its movement in the past and its current location relative to the intended target.

Achieving the desired goals represents the desire of the political system to ensure dynamic balance in society - the balance of groups, statuses, interests. However, the equilibrium of a social system is rather an ideal state than a real one, since goals are constantly being clarified. The implementation of the desired goals depends on the interaction of four quantitative factors: 1) information load on the system (it is determined by the scale of the tasks and the frequency of social changes that the government intends to implement); 2) lag in the system’s response (i.e., how quickly or slowly the political system is able to respond to new tasks and new operating conditions); 3) increments (i.e., the sum of those changes that arise as the system moves towards the desired goal: the more radically it reacts to new facts, the more significant the sum of changes, therefore, the further the system deviates from the set goal); 4) anticipation (the ability of the system to anticipate possible developments of events, the emergence of new problems and readiness to solve them).

Comparing these variables, TO.Deutsch brought out a number of dependencies: a) when achieving a goal, the possibility of success is always inversely proportional to the information load and the delay in the system’s response; b) up to a certain point, the chances of success are related to the size of the increment. But if the level of change resulting from the correction is too high, then the relationship becomes reversed; c) the possibility of success always correlates with anticipation, that is, with the ability of the government to effectively predict new problems that may arise and act proactively.

Model TO.Deutsch allows, according to the author himself, to impartially assess the effectiveness of political systems. He considered the criterion of effectiveness to be the ability of political systems “to function as a more or less effective steering mechanism.” The basis of such a mechanism is the government’s decision-making activities, formed on the basis of various flows of information. Conditionally decision making process breaks down into a number of stages. Initially, information flows coming from the internal and external environment are recorded by numerous receiving blocks. They also carry out the selection of information, data processing and coding. Then the information enters the “memory and values” block, where it is correlated with data on existing experience and the existing opportunities are compared with preferred goals. In the same block, information is accumulated and stored. Options for the possible development of processes when moving towards the set goal are transferred further - to the decision-making center. Here a solution is prepared, which is given to the executing units, or, in other words, “effectors” for execution. After executing commands, effectors inform the system about the results of the implementation of decisions and the state of the system itself. Based on information about the real results of previous actions, the system’s movement towards the desired goals is corrected. Following the feedback principle, decision execution data is returned to the system as a new “input” and processed.

Model TO.Deutsch draws attention to the importance of information in the life of a social system. In the conditions of the existence of ramified communication systems, information is the “nerves of control”, the activity of which largely determines the effectiveness of government. However, it omits the importance of other variables, including those that influence the process of transmitting information from top to bottom, and vice versa. For example, political will and ideological preferences can also influence the selection of information and the methods of conveying it to decision-making centers.

Without a constant exchange of information between all participants in political life, it is impossible to imagine the full functioning of the political system. The process of transmitting political information,through which it circulates from one part of the political system to another,as well as between political and social systems,calledpolitical communication. Of particular importance in political communication is the exchange of information between managers and governed in order to achieve agreement. On the one hand, the government, through communication, encourages the population to accept its decisions as binding. On the other hand, those controlled through the means of communication strive to express their interests so that the authorities learn about them.

Transfer of information carried out in various ways. The widest channel is the media: print (newspapers, books, posters, etc.) and electronic (radio, television, etc.). In addition to them, political parties, pressure groups, political clubs, associations and other organizations act as means of communication. An important way of communication is informal (personal) contacts between leaders of states, parties, and movements.

The movement of information from one part of the political system (for example, the elite) to another (citizens) depends on the maturity of the society itself. The sociocultural, economic and political development of society determines the direction of information, its volume, mobility, and differentiation depending on social groups. In developed countries, political information is addressed to all groups of the population, its circulation does not face censorship, it functions on the basis of mutual exchange: both from leaders to the population and from citizens to authorities.

In totalitarian and developing societies, communication based on informal contacts of “first persons” prevails. The information itself is significantly differentiated in volume and content depending on the addressee (intelligentsia and peasants, city and rural residents, etc.). The underdevelopment of the media and the lack of an independent press determine the measured nature and volume of political information and the complete control over it by the state.

Talcott Parsons, having synthesized the theoretical approaches of Max Weber (whose works he translated), Georg Simmel, Emile Durkheim, Pareto, Alan Marshall, Sigmund Freud, developed “a general theory of action and, in particular, social action (structural functionalism) as a self-organizing system.”

In the latter, which is defined by a set of functional problems of any system (adaptation, goal achievement, integration, maintaining a pattern), Parsons analytically identifies the subsystems of social structure, culture, and personality. The orientations of the actor (actor) are described using a set of standard (typical) variables. Parsons used this theoretical language to describe systems of economics, politics, law, religion, education, to analyze the family, hospital (and, in particular, mental hospitals), school class, university, art, mass media, sexual, racial and national relations, social deviations , and later - to build a neo-evolutionist comparative sociology of various societies involved and continuing to be involved in the universal process of modernization. Parsons and his theory were critical to the establishment of sociology as an academic discipline.

At an early stage of research, Parsons sought to find a certain compromise between E. Durkheim’s “sociologism,” which strictly determined human behavior by the influence of the external social environment, and M. Weber’s “understanding” theory of social action, which describes human behavior through compliance with “ideal types.” Parsons' early works were also significantly influenced by V. Pareto, who proposed a model similar to Weber's of dividing human actions for motivation into “logical” and non-logical, A. Marshall, G. Simmel, Z. Freud.

Structural-functional analysis is “the principle of studying social phenomena and processes as a system in which each element of the structure has a specific purpose (function).” Function in sociology is the role played by a certain social institution or process in relation to the whole (for example, the function of the state, family, etc. in society).

The concept of “system” came to political science from sociology. The development of the concept of “political system” is associated with the names of American representatives of structural-functional and systemic analysis.

Thus, according to T. Parsons, the political system is a subsystem of society, the purpose of which is to determine collective goals, mobilize resources and make decisions necessary to achieve them.

Essay by T. Parsons “On the concept of “political power””

Power in this work by T. Parsons is understood here as an intermediary, identical to money, circulating within what we call the political system, but going far beyond the latter and penetrating into three functional subsystems of society - the economic subsystem, the integration subsystem and the subsystem of maintaining cultural patterns . By resorting to a very brief description of the properties inherent in money as an economic instrument of this type, we can better understand the specific properties of power.

Money, as the classics of economics argued, is both a medium of exchange and a “standard of value.” Money is a symbol in the sense that while it measures and therefore “expresses” economic value or utility, it itself does not have utility in the original consumer sense of the word. Money does not have “use value”, but only “exchange value”, i.e. allow you to purchase useful things. Money thus serves to exchange offers for the sale or, conversely, for the purchase of useful things. Money becomes the main intermediary only when the exchange is not obligatory, like the exchange of gifts between certain categories of relatives, or when it is not carried out on the basis of barter, i.e. exchange of equal things and services.

Making up for the lack of direct benefit from itself, money endows the one who receives it with four important degrees of freedom with regard to participation in the system of general exchanges:

1) freedom to spend the money received on the purchase of any thing or set of things from those available on the market and within the limits of available funds;

2) freedom to choose between many options for the desired thing;

3) freedom to choose the time most suitable for purchase;

4) freedom to consider the terms of purchase, which, due to the freedom of choice of time and option of offer, a person can, depending on the circumstances, accept or reject. Along with receiving four degrees of freedom, a person is, of course, exposed to the risk associated with the hypothetical assumption that money will be accepted by others and that its value will remain unchanged.

Similarly, the concept of an institutionalized system of power primarily highlights a system of relations within which certain types of promises and obligations, whether imposed or taken on voluntarily - for example, under a contract - are considered enforceable, i.e. under normatively established conditions, authorized persons may require their implementation. In addition, in all established cases of refusal or attempts to refuse obedience, whereby the actor tries to evade his obligations, they will be “forced to respect” by threatening him with the real use of situationally negative sanctions, performing in one case the function of deterrence, in another - punishment . It is the events in the case of the actor in question that deliberately change (or threaten to change) the situation to his detriment, whatever the specific content of these changes.

Power, thus, “is the implementation of a generalized ability, consisting in obtaining from members of the collective the fulfillment of their obligations, legitimized by the significance of the latter for the goals of the collective, and allowing for the possibility of coercing the obstinate by applying negative sanctions to them, no matter who the actors in this operations".

The case with money is clear: when developing a budget designed to distribute available income, any allocation of funds for any one item must be made at the expense of other items. The most obvious political analogy here is the distribution of power within a discrete community. It is quite obvious that if A., who previously occupied a position associated with real power, is moved to a lower rank and B. is now in his place, then A. loses power, and B. receives it, and the total amount of power in the system remains unchanged . Many theorists, including G. Lasswell and C. Wright Mills, believed that “this rule is equally valid for the entire set of political systems.”

There is a circular movement between the political sphere and the economy; its essence lies in the exchange of the factor of political effectiveness - in this case, participation in control over the productivity of the economy - for an economic result consisting of control over resources, which can, for example, take the form of an investment loan. This circular movement is regulated by power in the sense that the factor represented by enforceable obligations, in particular the obligation to provide services, more than counterbalances the result represented by the possibilities opened up for effective action.

One of the conditions for the stability of this circulation system is the balance of factors and results of rule on both sides. This is another way of saying that this condition of stability as far as power is concerned is formulated ideally as a zero-sum system, although the same is not true, because of the investment process, for the money involved. The system of circular circulation inherent in the political sphere is then understood as a place of habitual mobilization of expectations regarding their fulfillment; this mobilization can be carried out in two ways: either we recall the circumstances that arise from previous agreements, which in some cases, as, for example, in the issue of citizenship, are legal; or we undertake, within established limits, new obligations that replace old ones that have already been fulfilled. Equilibrium, of course, characterizes the entire system, and not individual parts.

“Deposits” to the authorities made by voters can be withdrawn - if not immediately, then at least at the next elections and on a condition similar to the operating regime of a bank. In some cases, elections are associated with conditions comparable to barter, more precisely, with the expectation of the fulfillment of certain specific demands defended by strategically minded voters and by them alone. But it is especially important that in a system that is pluralistic in terms of not only the composition of the forces providing political support, but also the problems to be resolved, such leaders are given freedom of action to make various binding decisions, affecting in this case also other groups of society, and not just those whose “interest” was directly satisfied. This freedom can be represented as "limited by a circular flow: in other words, it can be said that the factor of power passing through the channel of political support will be most accurately balanced by its result - political decisions in the interests of those groups that specifically demanded them."

There is, however, another component of the freedom of elected leaders, which is decisive here. It is the freedom to use influence - for example, through the prestige of a position that does not coincide with the amount of power accorded to it - to make new attempts to "equalize" power and influence. It is the use of influence to strengthen the overall supply of power.

This process performs its role through a management function which - through relationships maintained with various aspects of the community's electoral structure - generates and structures new "demand" in the sense of a specific demand for solutions.

It can then be said that such demand—as applied to decision makers—justifies the growing production of power that is made possible precisely because of the generalized nature of the mandate of political support; since this mandate was not issued on the basis of barter, i.e. in exchange for specific decisions, but because of the "equalization" of power and influence that is established through elections, it is a means of carrying out, within the framework of the constitution, what appears at the governmental level to be most consistent with the "general interest." In this case, leaders can be compared to bankers or "brokers" who can mobilize the commitments of their constituents in such a way that the totality of commitments made by the entire community increases. This increase must still be justified by the mobilization of influence: it must be both perceived as consistent with existing norms and applicable to situations that “require” action at the level of collective commitment.

It can be assumed that the comparison with a loan, along with others, turns out to be correct from the point of view of its time dimension. The need for greater efficiency to carry out new programs that add to the overall workload of the community entails changes at the organizational level through new combinations of production factors, the development of new organisms, the commitment of personnel, the development of new norms and even modifications of the bases of legitimation. Consequently, elected leaders cannot be held legally responsible for immediate implementation, and, on the contrary, they need to be trusted by sources of political support, i.e. did not demand immediate "payment" - at the time of the next election - of the share of power that their votes had with decisions dictated by their own interests.

It may be legitimate to call the responsibility assumed in this case management responsibility, emphasizing its difference from administrative responsibility focused on day-to-day functions. In any case, one must think of the process of increasing power in a way strictly analogous to economic investment in the sense that the "recovery" should entail an increase in the level of collective success in the direction identified above, namely, an increase in the efficiency of collective action in areas of discovered value, about which no one would suspect if the leader did not take risks, like an entrepreneur who decides to invest.

Thus, for T. Parsons, power is a system of resources with the help of which common goals are achievable.

In general, summing up the above, I would like to note that T. Parsons was more of a sociologist than a political scientist, therefore, T. Parsons’ political views are closely related to sociology and stem from his sociological research. In relation to the methodology of political science, T. Parsons formulated the concept of a political system, which was later adopted to substantiate the theory of systems in political science, as well as political power.

1. Theoretical models of the political system

2. Structure of the political system

3. Functions of the political system

1. Theoretical models of the political system. The theory of political systems was created in the 50s, primarily through the efforts of American political scientists D. Easton, G. Almond, R. Dahl, K. Deutsch and others. In a speech at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1962, its then president G. Almond contrasted the theory of systems with the theory of separation of powers, noting that the “systems paradigm” is replacing “the dominant one in the 18th-19th centuries.” in political science, the paradigm of separation of powers.”

One of the reasons for the emergence and spread of the theory of political systems at this time was the general dissatisfaction with the methods of political analysis used. Behaviorist approaches made it possible to analyze political phenomena only in separate, often rather insignificant fragments. A fully realized need for a generalizing theory has emerged. And it appeared, and its creators generally managed to avoid both the over-factualism of the “empiricists,” “who cannot see the forest for the trees,” and the large losses of information in the abstract philosophical conclusions of the “theorists.”

The concept was based on the ideas of a systems approach borrowed from economics, sociology and cybernetics. The initial postulates of general systems theory are simple. Any system object must meet some essential rules of consistency, namely: consist of several interconnected elements, have relative isolation from other objects, i.e. a certain autonomy, and finally, to have a minimum internal integrity (this means that the whole is not reducible to the sum of its elements). The political sphere has these elementary qualities.

The essence of system analysis (or structural functionalism) * is the identification of the structure of a system object and the subsequent study of the functions performed by its elements. Thus, the problem of studying politics as a system was solved. By focusing on the relationships between the whole (the system) and its parts, adherents of systems analysis also examine how specific components of the system influence each other and the system as a whole.

The model for the creators of the theory was the concept of a “social system” T. Parsons, who considered systems of human action at any level in terms of functional subsystems specialized in solving their specific problems.* Thus, at the level of the social system, the adaptation function is provided by the economic subsystem, the integration function is provided by legal institutions and customs, the structure reproduction function, which, according to Parsons, constitutes the "anatomy" of society - a system of beliefs, morality and institutions of socialization (family, education system, etc.), the function of goal achievement - the political subsystem. Each of the subsystems of society, having the property of openness, depends on the results of the activities of the others. Moreover, mutual exchange in complex systems is carried out not directly, but with the help of “symbolic intermediaries”, which at the level of the social system are: money, influence, value commitments and power. Power, first of all, is a “generalized intermediary” in the political subsystem, while money is a “generalized intermediary” of the economic process, etc.

Thus, between the political and economic systems there is an exchange of power and money, political decisions and the consumption of monetary resources (for example, investments). Financial resources are invested, in particular, in political programs, which in itself is an entry factor. In turn, the political system has an input into the economic one, through the establishment of a legal framework for the process of wealth production. The main link of the social system is the political system, since it is in it that goal setting (specification) occurs and it plays a key role in the process of achieving significant goals. In addition, it is the political system that has the function of integrating members of society into power relations.

The theory of political systems also arose as an alternative to the traditional institutional approach in political science and claimed not only to generalize the vast empirical material obtained by behaviorists, but also to transform political science into a more precise discipline.

“The concept of “political system,” writes K. von Beyme”, - appeared in order to fill the “theoretical vacuum” that the concept of “state” left. The term is free of the legal connotations associated with the state and is more easily defined in terms of observable behavior. “The conceptual breadth of the term makes it a useful tool of analysis in the study of informal political structures, whereas “governance” is often closely identified with formal institutions.”

As a result, the categories of state and legal and institutional apparatus used in traditional political science were replaced by the political system. “The place of power was taken by function, the place of institution by role, the place of institution by structure” ( R.Chilcot). These categories were needed, in particular, to show that all political systems have a certain set of common characteristics

Considering the most important property of a political system to be the ability to maintain its qualitative certainty when the structure and functions of elements change, or, in other words, its stability, D. Easton puts forward as a priority the analysis of the conditions necessary to maintain the stability of the system and its survival (it is not accidental that structural -functional analysis is called “macrosociology of social stability”). For this purpose, in his opinion, four main categories should be considered: “political system”, “surrounding social environment”, “reaction” and “feedback”. Since it is these categories that are associated with “... the mobilization of resources and the development of decisions aimed at achieving the goals facing society.”

D. Easton considers interaction to be the unit of study of the political system. He writes: “In a broader context, the study of political life... can be described as the totality of social interactions between individuals and groups. Interaction is the basic unit of analysis. What primarily distinguishes political interactions from all other types of social interactions is that they are oriented toward the authoritarian distribution of values in society.” Hence, the political system is interpreted as a set of interactions carried out by individuals and groups, within the limits of their recognized roles, interactions aimed at the authoritarian distribution of values in society. Power in this interpretation of the political system acts as its main attribute. In an effort to emphasize the authoritative nature of the political system and its focus on making authoritarian decisions, some followers of D. Easton even call the political system a “decision-making machine.”

However, this interpretation of the political system is not the only one. Yes, from the point of view R. Dahl can be defined as a political system any stable type of human relations, which includes as its main components - power, norms and rules, authority. Thus, political systems may differ in the level of political institutionalization and political participation. A political system can be considered that intragroup structure that makes decisions in subsocietal groups (i.e. groups below the level of society as a whole), such as a family, church, trade union or commercial organization. At the same time, notes R. Dahl, not a single association of people is political in all aspects. The political system, consisting of authorized representatives of the population of a given country and its government, is a state. In turn, we can talk about an international political system with a geographical organization and national subsystems. This understanding of the political system can be called broad, but it does not oppose Easton’s approach.

In general, in US political science alone there are more than twenty definitions of the political system, but they are not fundamentally different from each other, being largely complementary.

Being an “open”, hierarchical, self-regulating, dynamically non-equilibrium system of behavior, the political system is influenced by the environment. With the help of self-regulation mechanisms, it develops responses, adapting to external conditions. Through these mechanisms, the political system regulates its behavior, transforms and changes its internal structure (structure refers to the standardization of interactions) or changes the functions of structural elements. “Self-sufficiency (of a system) in relation to the environment means stability of interchange relations in the interests of its own functioning and the ability to control interchange in the interests of its own functioning. This control can range from the ability to prevent or “stop” some violations, to the ability to form relationships with the environment in a favorable way,” noted T. Parsons.

Thus, the constant search for dynamic stability is the norm of functioning of the political system. In order to cope with stressful situations arising in the political system, it must have, in the opinion of M. Kaplan, “the ability to weaken stresses emanating from the environment, the ability to reorganize itself and the external environment in such a way as to put an end to the emergence of stresses in general or, at least, their appearance in previous forms,” which ensures a certain “independence” of the system from constant fluctuations in external conditions. If it does not have such “system maintenance capabilities” and does not take measures to prevent the destructive influence of the environment, and if the tensions within it are so great that the authorities cannot implement their decisions as binding, then the political system may be destroyed.

Thus, the longevity of any political system depends on the ability to change and adapt to the environment, i.e. restore dynamic balance. Moreover, the stability of one or another of them over any period of time does not indicate the absence of changes, but the presence of a systemic ability for non-violent changes in goals and leadership. According to S. Huntington, in the context of increasing political participation, in order to maintain political stability, it is necessary to increase the complexity, autonomy, adaptability and coherence of the political institutions of society.

In addition to “maintenance of the system,” the concept of “political stability” includes: civil order, legitimacy and effectiveness of the system. In any society, satisfied groups prefer maintaining the political “status quo” or non-violent changes, while dissatisfied groups are more inclined to resort to violent methods. If individual citizens and public groups are not integrated into the decision-making process, and the policy does not have support, cooperation and solidarity with elements of society, then it cannot be said that this system is open in nature and structure. When an agent of political space does not have a voice in the system and cannot satisfy his vital interests, he prefers the destruction of this system.

The exchange and interaction of the political system with the social environment is carried out according to the principle of “input” - “output” * (concepts borrowed from cybernetics). "Input" is any event that is external to the system and affects it in any way. "Output" represents the response of the political system to this influence in the form of political decisions, statements, laws, various events, symbolic acts, etc.

“Input” comes either in the form of “demands” or “support.” A demand is an opinion addressed to authorities regarding the desirable or undesirable distribution of values in society. We are talking about such values as: security, individual independence, political participation, consumer benefits, status and prestige, equality, etc. Thus, D. Easton, citing various definitions of the political system, figuratively compared it with a giant factory in which raw materials ( needs) are processed into primary material called requirements, which have two main forms. The first are the system’s own requirements for the environment, which result in decisions of government authorities. The second are demands demonstrating the sentiments of groups of people entering the political system with their needs.

However, all this does not mean that the political system must satisfy all demands addressed to it, especially since this is practically impossible. The political system can act quite independently when making decisions, choose between certain demands, and resolve certain issues at its own discretion.

In such cases, she turns to the so-called “support reserve”. Where support is such a political relationship when “A acts on the side of B, or orients himself favorably towards B, where A are people, and B is a political system as a certain interconnected and interacting set of political institutions and political leaders pursuing appropriate political goals and guided by certain political attitudes and values" (D. Easton). Support manifests itself in two types: internal support (or potential), expressed in sentiments of commitment to a given political system, tolerance, patriotism, etc., and external support, which involves not only accepting the values of a given system, but also practical actions on its side. It is support that ensures the stability of authorities that transform environmental requirements into appropriate political decisions, and also creates the necessary preconditions for the use of means and methods by which these transformations are carried out.

Since it is support that ensures the normal functioning of the political system, each system strives to create and introduce into the consciousness of its citizens through the channels of political socialization, the so-called “working values”, i.e. an ideology that strengthens its legitimacy. It is no coincidence that in the Western tradition, legitimacy is usually defined, first of all, as “the ability of a system to generate and maintain the people’s belief that its political institutions best meet the interests of a given society” ( S. Lipset).

The process of inputting requirements and support occurs through two main stages: articulation and aggregation of interests. Articulation is the process of awareness and formation of interests by individuals and small groups. Aggregation is already a generalization and coordination of closely articulated interests, transferring them to the level of programs, political declarations, draft laws, this is an adjustment of the current policy and the proposal of its alternatives. The main subject of articulation are interest groups.

Aggregation is one of the goals of the activities of political parties, mass media and the state. On the other side is the “output”, that which “measures the production” of the political system. This is government policy, i.e. decrees of the head of state and government resolutions, laws adopted by parliament, court decisions. It is also the production of symbols, signs and messages that also address the environment. These outgoings are thus a response to the demands of the surrounding social environment, which are thereby satisfied, rejected, contested or partially fulfilled. Finally, government decisions, affecting the environment, inevitably give rise to new demands and support. And this is the “feedback” of the system.

2. Structure of the political system. Since the political system is a complex, hierarchical formation, the question inevitably arises about its subsystems and structural elements. Answering it, G. Almond, in particular, identifies as such subsystems “... Three broad classes of objects: 1) specific roles and structures, such as legislative and executive bodies or bureaucracies; 2) role bearers, such as individual monarchs, legislators and administrators; 3) specific public events, decisions or execution of decisions.”

These structures, vehicles and decisions can in turn be classified in more detail depending on whether they are included in the political process or "input", or in the administrative process or "output". Moreover, analyzing the internal structure of the political system, G. Almond brings to the fore not so much the structures as the connections between them, their interactions, and the roles they perform in the political system. Typically, within the framework of a political system, the following three subsystems are distinguished:

Institutional (set of political institutions);

Information and communication (a set of communications);

Normative and regulatory (a set of moral, legal and political norms).

The dynamic characteristics of the political system are given through the concept of “political process”. Descriptions of the political process in Western political science, as a rule, are highly formalized, since they must meet two main requirements: to be operational and verifiable, in order to make possible the transition from a meaningful description of the process to the creation of a formal model (scheme) of the process in a mathematical or tabular form. - graphic form.

Hence, the political process is “the process of transforming information, transferring it from “input” to “output” (D. Easton).

Thus, we are talking practically about reducing the political process to the “transmission of meanings that are significant for the functioning of the political system,” that is, to political communication. K. Deutsch even expressed the opinion that political communication could become the focus of political science, then political systems would be interpreted as extensive communication networks. In the book “Nerves of Control: Models of Political Communication and Control,” he proposes an information-cybernetic model of the political system, within which he identifies four blocks associated with various phases of information and communication flows:

Receiving and selecting information at the “input” of the system (through external and internal receptors);

Processing and evaluation of information;

Decision making;

Implementation of decisions and feedback from the “output” of the system to the “input”.

In the first phase the political system receives information through foreign policy and domestic policy “receptors”, which include information services (public and private), public opinion research centers, etc. In this block, selection, systematization and primary analysis of incoming data take place.

Second phase ensures further processing of already selected information, which enters the “memory and values” block, where, on the one hand, it is compared with existing data, and on the other, evaluated through the prism of norms, stereotypes and values prevailing in a given political system.

In the third phase the government, as a “decision-making center,” makes appropriate decisions to regulate the current state of the system. The decision is made after receiving a final assessment of the degree of compliance with the current political situation, the main priorities and goals of the political system.

Fourth phase assumes that the so-called “effectors” (executive bodies - domestic and foreign policy) implement the decisions made by the government. At the same time, the results of the activities of the “effectors” generate new information (domestic and foreign policy) at the “output” of the system, which through “feedback” again enters the “input” and brings the entire system to a new cycle of functioning.

K. Deutsch identifies three main types of communications carried out in the political system:

Personal informal communications, for example, personal contacts of a candidate for deputy with voters in a relaxed atmosphere;

Communications through organizations and pressure groups, for example when contact with the government is carried out through political parties, trade unions, etc.;

Communications through media (print and electronic).

However, this interpretation of the political system was criticized for “the mechanical transfer of terminology, operating principles and the most important provisions of cybernetics into the sphere of politics” ( R.Kan).

The interpretation proposed by G. Almond has become generally accepted: “When speaking about the political process, or input, we mean the flow of demands from society to the state and the conversion of these demands into authoritative political measures. The structures involved primarily in the entry process include political parties, interest groups and means of communication." At the same time, "exit" is interpreted in Western political science as an "administrative process", when speaking about it they mean "... the process of implementation or imposing authoritative political decisions. The structures primarily involved in this process include bureaucracies and courts.”

So, the political process consists of the following main cycles:

Receipt of information from the environment into the receptors of the political system;

Its circulation in the system;

Transformation of the political system;

Based on the foregoing, we can define the political process as the total activity of all actors* of political relations associated with the formation, change, transformation and functioning of the political system.

3. Functions of the political system Since any political system strives for self-preservation and adaptation to the requirements of its environment, adherents of structural functionalism argue that it is possible to identify a finite number of processes through which these goals will become feasible. In their opinion, in all political systems of the past and present the same “functions”* were provided, only the composition and complexity of state and other political structures changed. It was on this basis that a general theory of the functions of the political system arose. For example, at work G. Almond And B. Powell“Comparative politics” functions aimed at self-reproduction of the system and its adaptation to the environment are divided into three groups:

I. Conversion functions. Their goal is to ensure that demands and support are translated into political decisions or actions. G. Almond and B. Powell identify six functions here. Two of them are carried out at the “input” level and should ensure the regulation of everything that feeds the political system: we are talking about identifying interests and demands and their harmonization.

Three other functions are at the “output”, these are: a) development of mandatory rules; b) implementing them; c) judicial function.

The sixth function - political connection/communication (movement or containment of information, transmission of meanings significant for the functioning of the political system) concerns both the “input” and “output” of the system.

2 . Adaptation function. The pressure exerted on the political system by demands of all kinds creates a constant factor of imbalance. This overload is counteracted by two functions of the system: a) the recruitment of specialized political personnel who receive demands and carry out their optimal processing; b) the function of political socialization, i.e. the spread of a political culture compatible with the requirements of survival and adaptation of the system to its environment.

3. Abilities. They concern the relationship between the political system and its environment: a) the ability to mobilize material and human resources for the normal functioning of the system; b) ability to regulate - i.e. establish control over people located in the territory controlled by the system; c) the ability to distribute, i.e. provision of services, status, remuneration, etc.; d) the ability to support symbolism - i.e. carrying out actions to give something legal force, celebrating heroic dates or events related to public values that contribute to achieving agreement; e) ability to listen, i.e. the ability to accept demands before they create serious tension in society.

The idea that any political system necessarily fulfills some basic tasks has made it possible to advance to a very important stage in the development of grounds on which comparable elements would be distinguished in fundamentally different political systems. According to G. Almond, the ideal separation of functions is unattainable in practice. Power sectors, political parties, interest groups, etc. almost inevitably perform not one, but several functions. “Any political structure, no matter how highly specialized it may be, is multifunctional.”

There is no doubt that the more a political system develops, the more differentiated it becomes; the specialization of its structures will continue until each function is performed by the corresponding social institution. Thus, in modern democratic specialized systems, there are structures, notes G. Almond, “whose functions are clearly defined and which strive to play a regulatory role in the performance of this function within the political system as a whole.” In addition, systems with more developed structural specialization usually have greater resources (finance, information, technical personnel, complex organizational structures), effective political organizations, as well as mass value orientations necessary to ensure serious social transformations. Conversely, less specialized systems lack these resources to effectively adapt to shocks that disturb the system's equilibrium ( Ch.F.Endrain).

Therefore, one of the tasks of scientific analysis is to show how various specialized political institutions have historically been formed - executive authorities, parliaments, bureaucracies, courts - and to show what are the functions that could be performed by similar structures in different historical, cultural and systemic systems. contexts.

The structural-functional approach also aroused great interest among political scientists because it seemed to make it possible to model political relations, making it possible to “unfold” the political situation in the direction opposite to the real flow of time, that is, from effect to cause, which led to the clarification of factors and actions that contributed to political crises and conflicts. It was assumed that the models obtained as a result of such testing could be used to “unfold” the situation in the future and detect crisis factors in advance. It seemed that, finally, a means had been found that would allow political science to fully perform its predictive function.

In addition to enormous interest, the ideas of systemic analysis of politics also gave rise to great disappointments, for example, researchers were faced with four “damned” problems: subjectivity, multidimensionality, uncertainty and vagueness of criteria for political behavior. Indeed, the political process involves living people with their aspirations, expectations, stereotypes and prejudices, who are either actively involved in relations with the state and other political institutions, or, for reasons that are not always clear, fall into apathy and ignore their politically significant interests. Therefore, the political process is not predictable and does not carry any predetermination in the development of political events. This was the price that had to be paid for applying a systematic approach (as it turned out not to be universal) to understanding political realities.

In addition, according to this theory, the place of an individual, group or institution in the political system, on the one hand, and the functions they perform, on the other, determine their behavioral attitudes, orientations and goals of activity. Therefore, the study of roles and their changes within a given political system allows us to reveal the decision-making process, that is, to understand the mechanism of functioning of political power in a given society. Thus, the whole - the system - dominates the individual. Hence, in particular, the not unfounded accusations of the lack of subjectivity of the political process.

There is no doubt that in the political process the structural, value and behavioral aspects are closely interrelated. “The motives of individual people’s behavior, the specifics of their perception of what is happening, their individual attitudes and mode of action become clear through the study of the micropolitical aspects of the policy process. Individuals manage structures, give one or another interpretation of cultural values and, thus, can make changes to macropolitical components. Structural and cultural aspects not only constrain individual actions, but also enable them to make decisions that lead to systemic change.”

The most serious criticism of structural functionalism has been that it represents a “macrosociology of political stability.” Interpretations of the processes of change here come down to either the fact that the political system, after a period of instability, returns to its previous state, or that some new equilibrium is being established. “In no case can we consider Easton’s theory a theory of political change,” he wrote, in particular Thomas Thorson, - a theory that would provide answers to questions about why certain specific political changes occur.” Viewing this as a manifestation of an initially ideological, conservative attitude, critics argued that it was impossible to describe and analyze conflicts and political transitions within the framework of structural functionalism. Sociologist Don Martindale summarized the shortcomings of structural functionalism as follows: conservative ideological bias and preference for the status quo; lack of methodological clarity; excessive emphasis on the role of closed systems in social life; inability to study social change.

However, within the framework of structural-functional analysis, clear successes have been achieved. Adherents of this approach introduced into political science a rich, rigorous, and politically neutral language of systems analysis. The concept of “political system” made it possible to more clearly delineate the boundaries of political power and highlight power relations at all levels. Structural functionalism made it possible to include the countries of the “Third World” in the field of comparative political analysis, which led, in particular, to the advancement of theories of political modernization in political science (since the 60s), and this, in turn, made it possible to implement a breakthrough in the study of newly independent states. The turn to the study of informal mechanisms for making political decisions and the functioning of the state was also very important.

TEST QUESTIONS

1. Prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of political systems?

2. What is the political system of society according to D. Easton?

3. What are the “input” and “output” of the political system?

4. What is the peculiarity of K. Deutsch’s cybernetic model of the political system?

5. What are the main structural elements of a political system?

6. What are the main conditions for maintaining the political stability of the system?

7. List the main functions of the political system?

8. Expand the place and role of theories of the political system in political science.

Literature:

1. Anokhin M.G. Political systems: adaptation, dynamics, stability. M., 1996.

2. Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to Political Science. M., 1997.