Social stability. Political stability

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political Stability"

SAMARA 2006

Political stability is an integral part general concept stability of the state. Synonyms for “stability” are “constancy”, “immutability”, “steadiness”. “Political stability is considered as the psychological ability of the population to maintain calm behavior, despite external or internal unfavorable conditions. Political instability develops only in cases where the mass of people are psychologically prepared to react aggressively to any socio-economic events” (A.I. Yuryev). The disruption of psychological and political stability is caused by an increase in tension in problem areas society. That is, the presence and escalation of destabilizing factors in society. The level of political stability in a society can be measured. An indicator of political stability is the ratio of the level of social/political aggressiveness of the population and the level of social/political subordination of the masses. However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, even minimal, level of stability is absolutely necessary for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can vary significantly and vary - from balancing on the brink of large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only the levels or degree of stability - instability, but also various types political stability. In this regard, researchers distinguish, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to change and the influence of the environment, and, secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment. An example of the latter can be some political regimes that functioned in the pre-Soviet and Soviet Russia. Russian experience convinces that an authoritarian, charismatic leader is capable of ensuring the stabilization of society on the path to a breakthrough to new frontiers of social and economic progress. The reign of any of the strong, reformist-minded political leaders we take - Peter I, Alexander II, early Stalin - everywhere we see grandiose socio-economic results, the speed of which cannot be compared with the time frame in which such transformations took place. were carried out in the West. However, as soon as the energy at the top weakened for some reason, the development of society was slowed down, stabilization

Political stability in Russian literature is understood as:

A system of connections between different political entities, characterized by a certain integrity and efficiency of the system itself.

Orderly processes in politics, the inconsistency and conflict potential of which are regulated with the help of political institutions.

Agreement among major social and political forces on goals and methods social development.

State political life society, manifested in the sustainable functioning of all political institutions existing in society, associated with the preservation and improvement of structures, with their qualitative certainty.

The set of political processes that ensure the existence and development of political subjects in the political system.

You should also turn to the most popular approaches to determining political stability in Western political science:

A). First of all, stability is understood as the absence in society real threat illegitimate violence or the state’s ability to allow - in crisis situation- deal with it.

Stability is also considered as a function of democracy, which includes, among other things, the participation of citizens in government through institutions civil society.

b). Stability is also interpreted as the functioning of one government for a certain long period of time, suggesting, accordingly, its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities.

V). The presence of a constitutional order can also be considered a determining factor for stability. S. Huntington, in particular, defines stability according to the formula “order plus continuity,” assuming that the development option leading to the specified goal is one in which the model of the organization of power during long period time retains its essential characteristics.

G). Stability as absence structural changes in a political system or as having the ability to manage them, in other words, in a stable system or political process does not lead to radical changes, or - if such changes are nevertheless observed - they are subordinated to a strategy developed in advance by the ruling elite.

Thus, as N.A. Pavlov emphasizes, one of the most significant problems in the functioning of the political system is ensuring its stability. This means the system maintains its institutions, roles and values under changing conditions social environment, the implementation of its main functions. Stability and sustainability of a political system is a state when any deviations in the actions of political subjects are corrected by the implementation of established, legitimized norms.

Political stability should also be understood as component general condition stability of the state. This interpretation of the concept gives a new dimension to the emerging concept “ sustainable development» society. Political stability is ensured not only by the action of political factors themselves, the balance of elements of the political system, and the stability of political relations. An indispensable condition Political stability is stable relations between the peoples living on the territory of the country and the state.

Stability is correlated with the situational and operational parameters of political dynamics, and sustainability - with its strategic, historical dimensions. Stability in the country can be achieved through a tactical and temporary agreement between the main political forces, but the strategic stability of political life may still be very far away, as was the case in France in February 1848, then the workers and bourgeoisie, who originally formed the Provisional Government, were already in In June of the same year they clashed on the streets of Paris in barricade battles. Organic stability, inertia, as opposed to simple stability, are associated not simply with the easily disturbed balance of two or more social forces, their more or less unstable truce, but with the action of a certain integrating formula, into which it is cast for a relatively long time political culture the whole society. So, political stability expresses a state of political dynamics in which a temporary equilibrium (or balance) of forces of the main political factors is achieved, after which subsequent destabilization and disruption are possible. of this balance. The processes of establishing temporary stability in the absence of strategic stability are very typical for many political regimes countries of Asia and Africa, the conditions opposite to stability and stability are instability and instability. An extreme form of instability of political dynamics is a systemic crisis in all spheres public life, the long-term and growing nature of which sometimes leads to revolutions and the collapse of the old political system. Classic examples of such political cataclysms are the revolution of 1789 in France, the events of 1917 in Russia, or degradation, anomie, and then the collapse of statehood in Somalia, torn apart by warring clans during the civil war. A. de Tocqueville notes two significant reasons that gave rise to the instability of the political dynamics of France, which led the country to the Great Revolution in 1789: firstly, a radical change in the balance of power between the two leading classes, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, when the latter seized bureaucratic control over the management of French society, and secondly, the decline of the old political institutions that maintained the previous balance of social forces. He adds to this that the administrative reforms of 1787 (provincial assemblies, etc.), which dramatically changed the institutional structure of France, increased its political instability, and thus the reforms brought the revolution closer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, political stability is ensured subject to the unity of the Constitution and laws Russian Federation, Fundamentals of legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and at the same time - with a clear distinction between the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between federal authorities state power and authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This is the key problem of modern multinational Russia.

References.

1. Zhirikov A.A. Political stability Russian state. M., 1999.

2. Makarychev A.S. Stability and instability in democracy: Methodological approaches and assessments. // Policy. – 1998. – No. 1.

3. Pavlov N. A. National security. Ethnodemographic factors // National interests. – 1998. – No. 1.

4. Koroleva G.I. Russia: in search of a formula for national revival // Socio-political journal. – 1994. – No. 1-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The more seats in parliament opposition and anti-system forces have, the more less likely long existence of the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. FORMATION OF HUMAN PERSONALITY

This is a stable state of the political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of external and internal environment, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change. Significant contribution to the research by S.p. contributed by S. Lipset and S. Huntington. According to Lipset, S.p. determined by the legitimacy and effectiveness of power. The absence of both variables causes instability of the political system, while the presence of only one of them leads to relative stability/instability. Huntington associates political stability with the level of political institutionalization. The higher the level of political institutionalization, the more stable the system. There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization. Mobilization stability arises in social structures, where development is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize the goal at certain period. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, General civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take upon themselves the responsibility to express the interests of society and are able to ensure its progress during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of the mobilization S.p. can serve the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the military status and combat capability of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society that can separate the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems does not feel the need for change as long as the status quo allows it to maintain its social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived. Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of smb. specific social and political subjects, arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of government and society emerges, which is necessary for carrying out deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensuring stabilization ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly through the legitimation of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number management functions the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of the gradual strengthening of the position of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts here are legalized and resolved in civilizational ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in a prosperous country in comparison with others is cultivated, growth dynamics are maintained welfare. An important factor autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system, without presuming the role of the main subject of social changes, is called upon to support existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems becomes a stable tradition and a civilizational value. Factors of instability include the struggle for power between competing groups of the ruling elite, the creation of a threat to the integrity and very existence of states, the personification of power, the predominance of corporate interests of the ruling elite in state policy, the presence of interethnic and regional contradictions, the difficulty of ensuring the continuity of democratic power, foreign policy adventurism, doctrinaire politics, etc. Instability can manifest itself in such forms as changes in the political regime, change of government, armed struggle against the ruling regime, activation of opposition forces, etc.

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political Stability"

SAMARA 2006

Political stability is an integral part of the general concept of state stability. Synonyms for “stability” are “constancy”, “immutability”, “steadiness”. “Political stability is considered as the psychological ability of the population to maintain calm behavior, despite external or internal unfavorable conditions. Political instability develops only in cases where the mass of people are psychologically prepared to react aggressively to any socio-economic events” (A.I. Yuryev). An increase in tension in problem areas of society leads to a violation of psychological and political stability. That is, the presence and escalation of destabilizing factors in society. The level of political stability in a society can be measured. An indicator of political stability is the ratio of the level of social/political aggressiveness of the population and the level of social/political subordination of the masses. However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change or even reform. Moreover, a relative, even minimal, level of stability is absolutely necessary for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can vary significantly and vary - from balancing on the brink of a large-scale civil war to total immobility and immutability of political forms. Therefore, it seems legitimate to distinguish not only levels or degrees of stability and instability, but also different types of political stability. In this regard, researchers distinguish, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to change and the influence of the environment, and, secondly, mobilization, or static stability, functioning on the basis of fundamentally different mechanisms of interaction with the environment. An example of the latter can be some political regimes that functioned in pre-Soviet and Soviet Russia. Russian experience convinces us that an authoritarian, charismatic leader is capable of ensuring the stabilization of society on the path to a breakthrough to new frontiers of social and economic progress. The reign of any of the strong, reformist-minded political leaders we take - Peter I, Alexander II, early Stalin - everywhere we see grandiose socio-economic results, the speed of which cannot be compared with the time frame in which such transformations took place. were carried out in the West. However, as soon as the energy at the top weakened for some reason, the development of society was slowed down, stabilization

Political stability in Russian literature is understood as:

A system of connections between different political entities, characterized by a certain integrity and efficiency of the system itself.

Orderly processes in politics, the inconsistency and conflict potential of which are regulated with the help of political institutions.

Agreement between the main social and political forces regarding the goals and methods of social development.

The state of the political life of society, manifested in the sustainable functioning of all political institutions existing in society, associated with the preservation and improvement of structures, with their qualitative certainty.

The set of political processes that ensure the existence and development of political subjects in the political system.

You should also turn to the most popular approaches to determining political stability in Western political science:

A). First of all, stability is understood as the absence in society of a real threat of illegitimate violence or the presence of the state’s capabilities to cope with it in a crisis situation.

Stability is also considered as a function of democracy, which includes, among other things, the participation of citizens in government through the institutions of civil society.

b). Stability is also interpreted as the functioning of one government for a certain long period of time, suggesting, accordingly, its ability to successfully adapt to changing realities.

V). The presence of a constitutional order can also be considered a determining factor for stability. S. Huntington, in particular, defines stability according to the formula “order plus continuity,” suggesting that the development option leading to the specified goal is one in which the model of the organization of power retains its essential characteristics for a long period of time.

G). Stability as the absence of structural changes in a political system or as the presence of the ability to manage them. In other words, in a stable system, either the political process does not lead to radical changes, or - if such changes are observed - they are subordinated to a strategy developed in advance by the ruling elite.

Thus, as N.A. Pavlov emphasizes, one of the most significant problems in the functioning of the political system is ensuring its stability. This means that the system preserves its institutions, roles and values under changing conditions of the social environment, and carries out its basic functions. Stability and sustainability of a political system is a state when any deviations in the actions of political subjects are corrected by the implementation of established, legitimized norms.

Political stability should also be understood as an integral part of the overall state of stability of the state. This interpretation of the concept adds a new dimension to the emerging concept of “sustainable development” of society. Political stability is ensured not only by the action of political factors themselves, the balance of elements of the political system, and the stability of political relations. An indispensable condition for political stability is stable relations between the peoples living on the territory of the country and the state.

Stability is correlated with the situational and operational parameters of political dynamics, and sustainability - with its strategic, historical dimensions. Stability in the country can be achieved through a tactical and temporary agreement between the main political forces, but the strategic stability of political life may still be very far away, as was the case in France in February 1848, then the workers and bourgeoisie, who originally formed the Provisional Government, were already in In June of the same year they clashed on the streets of Paris in barricade battles. Organic stability, inertia, as opposed to simple stability, are associated not simply with the easily disturbed balance of two or several social forces, their more or less unstable truce, but with the action of a certain integrating formula into which the political culture of the entire society is molded for a relatively long time. So, political stability expresses a state of political dynamics in which a temporary balance (or balance) of the forces of the main political factors has been achieved, after which subsequent destabilization and disruption of this balance is possible. The processes of establishing temporary stability in the absence of strategic stability are very characteristic of many political regimes in Asia and Africa; conditions opposite to stability and stability are instability and instability. An extreme form of instability of political dynamics is a systemic crisis in all spheres of public life, the prolonged and growing nature of which sometimes leads to revolutions and the collapse of the old political system. Classic examples of such political cataclysms are the revolution of 1789 in France, the events of 1917 in Russia, or degradation, anomie, and then the collapse of statehood in Somalia, torn apart by warring clans during the civil war. A. de Tocqueville notes two significant reasons that gave rise to the instability of the political dynamics of France, which led the country to the Great Revolution in 1789: firstly, a radical change in the balance of power between the two leading classes, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, when the latter seized bureaucratic control over the management of French society, and secondly, the decline of the old political institutions that maintained the previous balance of social forces. He adds to this that the administrative reforms of 1787 (provincial assemblies, etc.), which dramatically changed the institutional structure of France, increased its political instability, and thus the reforms brought the revolution closer.

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

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

a stable state of a political system, allowing it to function effectively and develop under the influence of the external and internal environment, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the processes of social change. Significant contribution to the research by S.p. contributed by S. Lipset and S. Huntington. According to Lipset, S.p. determined by the legitimacy and effectiveness of power. The absence of both variables causes instability of the political system, while the presence of only one of them leads to relative stability/instability. Huntington associates political stability with the level of political institutionalization. The higher the level of political institutionalization, the more stable the system.

There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization. Mobilization stability arises in social structures where development is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize a goal for a certain period of time. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, General civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take upon themselves the responsibility to express the interests of society and are able to ensure its progress during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of the mobilization S.p. can serve the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the military status and combat capability of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society that can separate the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems does not feel the need for change as long as the status quo allows it to maintain its social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived. Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of smb. specific social and political subjects, arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of government and society emerges, which is necessary for carrying out deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensuring the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly through the legitimation of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of management functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of the gradual strengthening of the position of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts here are legalized and resolved in civilizational ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief in a prosperous country in comparison with others is cultivated. , the dynamics of welfare growth are maintained. An important factor in autonomous stability is the heterogeneity of the population in terms of status, employment, and income. The political system, without presuming the role of the main subject of social changes, is called upon to maintain existing economic relations. Democracy in autonomous systems is becoming a stable tradition and a general civilizational value.

Incomplete definition ↓