The problem of political stability of the regime is undoubtedly one of the fundamental ones in political science. S. Huntington, who made a significant contribution to the development of this problem, wrote in one of the first and most famous of his books: "The most significant political characteristic of various societies is connected not with the form of their government, but with the degree of control." More than twenty years later, he repeated this thought almost verbatim in the pages of another work: "The difference between order and anarchy is more fundamental than the difference between democracy and dictatorship."

One of the most important (although not the only) factors to which it is customary to pay attention is socio-economic development. The imperative of development acts at one of the stages of social evolution as a condition for the self-preservation of power. If the authorities, the regime, for some reason, do not realize this and become a brake on the implementation of the urgent socio-economic transformations, then the outcome of such "stubbornness" most often is their removal from the political arena. Elimination, let us add, is associated with very painful consequences for society. The imperative of development is therefore absolute and irremovable. Only a government that fully takes into account this imperative in its activities can be considered promising. Based on this understanding, a regime capable of ensuring the integration of society along the paths of effective socio-economic development can be considered stable.

Modernization is almost never accompanied by the stabilization of existing political structures. The weakening of legitimacy, the frantic search for additional social and international support by the authorities - these are phenomena that are well known to observers of the current Russian situation and which are much more typical of any transitional period, "Modernity," Huntington wrote, "needs stability, but modernization) breeds instability". In Political Order in Changing Societies, Huntington summarized his observations on political stability and instability in three formulas. In his opinion, under the conditions of modernizing authoritarianism, ensuring stability should be associated with limiting the role of the political participation of the masses, which will undermine the reliability of institutions.

However, stability does not necessarily mean the absence of change and even reform. Moreover, a relative, albeit minimal, level of stability is essential for reformers to succeed. The level of stability can differ 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 single out not only the levels or degree of stability-instability, but also different types political stability. In this regard, researchers single out, firstly, dynamic stability, adaptive and open to changes 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.

Legitimacy of power

The problem of the legitimacy of political power, posed by no means in the twentieth century, but especially accentuated by the works of M. Weber, continues to cause a lot of controversy among sociologists, philosophers and political scientists. In these disputes, we will be interested in only one aspect: whether legitimacy is necessary and sufficient condition maintaining political stability. In general, researchers agree that legitimacy, if it exists, undoubtedly contributes to stabilization.

M. Weber proceeded from the fact (although such an interpretation of Weber continues to be disputed) that legitimacy is a factor that allows stabilizing relations of political domination in society. Under the system of domination, Weber meant such a social order, where orders are given and orders are carried out. According to Weber, the execution of orders is achieved not only and even not so much by the use of force.

More importantly, any government acts within the framework of certain socially developed norms and rules of the community and relies on these norms in its activities. If such norms are recognized by the public majority and perceived as values, one can be sure that state power has a fairly solid foundation. Or, in other words, it has legitimacy.

Legitimacy, therefore, means the coincidence of social norms and values, the recognition or legitimacy (in the non-legal sense) of power. For Weber, legitimacy acts as a guarantor of the stability of the structures, procedures, decisions of officials in society, "regardless of the specific content of their actions." According to Weber, legitimacy can be of three fundamental types - rational, traditional, and charismatic. Accordingly, power acquires its powers on the basis of three different ways - rationally developed rules of human society, traditions that have developed in society and the charisma of the leader. Since legitimacy acts for Weber as an internal basis and meaning of political domination, then on its basis, the German scientist believed, three main types of political domination can also be distinguished.

Legitimate power thus contains a contradiction in itself and is potentially unstable. The presence of this contradiction, noticed by political analysis, contributed to the emergence and development of the concept of "effectiveness" of power in political science, and also again drew the attention of researchers to the problem of stabilizing a regime that does not have political and ideological legitimacy.

According to another position put forward by researchers of specific political systems and processes, legitimacy is essential, but not necessary for the stabilization of the regime. In the practice of regimes, periods can be found, and sometimes quite long ones, up to two decades, when the regime exists permanently, although the legitimacy and justice of its power is not recognized by the majority of the population. In particular, the well-known researcher of South Africa S. Grinberg wrote about this, showing that the apartheid regime, due to the use of military-economic resources, turned out to be much more stable than expected, despite the fact that in quantitative terms it was supported by no more than one-fifth of the population.

Thus, the problem of legitimacy, for all its importance, by no means exhausts the content of regime stability. Let us therefore turn to the next most important component of political stability.

Power efficiency

The effectiveness of power is a parameter that is often considered by political scientists as complementary or interchangeable with legitimacy and capable of stabilizing the system even in conditions of its insufficient legitimacy.

The concept of efficiency as such was put into circulation by S. Lipset in his 1960 work "Political Man. The Social Foundations of Politics". According to Lipset, the stability of power is determined not by one (legitimacy), but by two parameters - the legitimacy and economic efficiency of power. He believed that the very legitimacy of the system of power can be achieved in two ways: either through continuity, its perception of the former, once established norms; or at the expense of efficiency, i.e. the system itself gaining the ability, even abandoning traditional norms, to solve urgent, primarily socio-economic problems of social development. In the first case, Lipset undoubtedly had in mind the traditional type of legitimacy identified by Weber, based on a patriarchal or estate system of social ties. This is a historic situation in which the imperative of economic development has not yet shown itself as a top priority and urgent. Therefore, the authorities may be preoccupied with other, "their own" problems (intrigues, elimination of the recalcitrant, objectively unnecessary external wars).

Another thing is charismatic legitimacy, designed to demonstrate the prophetic qualities of a leader and his ability to lead the process of radical transformation of the economic and value foundations of society, relying in this on the affective faith of the masses in his extraordinary qualities. This kind of legitimacy is closely related to economic efficiency. Firstly, it will not be able to exist for a sufficiently long time without significant economic shifts, and secondly, the very nature and depth of these shifts are subject to the influence of the charismatic. Take the Stalinist reforms. The authority of the "leader" in the Bolshevik and popular masses arose and strengthened due to the existing vacuum of power and Stalin's ability, taking advantage of this vacuum, to gradually subjugate the organs of state coercion and the machine of party power. However, later one of the factors of this authority was the economic leap made by the country from a pre-industrial to an industrial economy. This leap, the replicated figures of achievements, the ongoing propaganda campaign in a society with a traditional political culture served both as a source of mass enthusiasm and labor heroism, and strengthening the authority of the "leader of all times and peoples." The economic efficiency of the regime thus served as one of the undoubted sources of its legitimacy. To a certain extent, this dynamic is characteristic of any political system. Lipset wrote, for example, that "the success of the American Republic in establishing post-revolutionary democratic legitimacy may have been due to the strength of society's attainable values." Efficiency, as it becomes clear, is a source of legitimacy and, at the same time, a bridge that facilitates the replacement of one type of legitimate power by another.

Thus, we can conclude that the political stability of power consists of two main components - legitimacy, or recognition of its authority by broad social strata and efficiency, which means the ability of power to use the resources at its disposal (material and spiritual-psychological) in order to solve urgent and urgent problems. tasks. The effectiveness of power is not limited to its ability to control the situation in society, but also contributes along with this to the solution of socio-economic problems. The social conflict is thus under the control of the authorities because it will be able to involve the main sections of society in the process of reform and development. Adequate political leadership, skillful use and transformation of existing political institutions expand the meaning of effective power, helping to reduce the potential for social violence (manifestations of this violence can range from unsanctioned strikes and demonstrations to the armed actions of insurgents and terrorists) and ensure the integration of society.

Socio-political stability is one of the necessary conditions for the successful development of any society; in a transitional society, the importance of stability increases many times over.

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 of the stability of the political system is its ability to neutralize negative influences from 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. Adequate and timely response to such influences from the outside allows you to protect your own national interests of the state, to achieve favorable conditions for their implementation . The negative impact from outside on the political system may not be purposeful, but be the result of general planetary difficulties and unresolved problems.

At the same time, external influences can also have a positive character for the political system, if the foreign policy pursued by the state does not contradict the interests of the world community. The peoples are interested in the consistent implementation of the democratization, humanization and demilitarization of world politics, in the development of measures to ensure the survival of mankind in the conditions of the crisis of modern society and a sharp deterioration in the quality of natural factors. Accounting for these global needs in political practice is approved and supported by other countries of the world community, which strengthens the position and authority of the state, its leaders in public opinion, both abroad and within the country.

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

Thus, political stability is ensured under the condition of the unity of the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, the Fundamentals of Legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and, at the same time, with a clear delineation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal state authorities and the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This is the key problem of today's multinational Russia.

List of used literature and sources

1. L.N. Alisova, Z.T. Golenkov. Political sociology. Political support as a condition for stability. M., 2006.

2. Averyanov Yu.I. Political science: encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1993.

3. See: Krasnov B. I. Political system // Socio-political journal. M., 1995.

4. Tishkov V. A. Post-Soviet Russia as a national state: problems and prospects // At the turn of the century. St. Petersburg, 1996.

5. Tsygankov A. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. M., 1995.

6. http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Polit/Cigank/11.php

Complexity and polycentrism political life, the possibility of analyzing its institutional and functional structures from the standpoint of a variety of criteria are the basis for the classification of political systems. Practical value typologies of political systems is to determine the sufficiency of the conditions that allow them to function effectively and fulfill their political tasks, functions and roles. In modern political science, there are various classifications of political systems, which depend on the criteria for differentiation and various research tasks.

Even the ancient Greek thinkers Platov and Aristotle proposed their own classification of the political system, which was based on the existing forms of government.

In particular, Aristotle in his "Politics" proposed three criteria for differentiating political systems: the number of citizens involved in decision-making; presence or absence of legal restrictions; dominant feature of the ruling class. On this basis, he singled out "correct" and "wrong" systems: in the first case - a politician), monarchy and aristocracy, in the other - democracy, tyranny, oligarchy. The greatest thinkers of Antiquity saw dangerous trends in the strengthening of spontaneous power - ochlocracy (crowd power). They considered it reasonable to have a ruling elite and provide civil rights to various groups of the policy in accordance with their property status and professional interests.

Important in addressing issues of the typology of political systems is to take into account the level of economic development of society, the volume, methods and possibilities of exercising the rights and freedoms of citizens, pluralism and the presence (or absence) of civil society, the level of political culture and a number of other factors. Nevertheless, the main thing in the typology of political systems is the essence of the political power exercised in society and the nature and direction of social, economic and cultural development predetermined by it.

At the beginning of the XX century. in the typology of political systems, the opposition of the Marxist and Weberian traditions of analysis was manifested public structures. The essence of the Marxist approach to the analysis of the political system was the absolutization of the class factor in the functioning and development of the political system. Systems were classified primarily depending on the political interests of which class they expressed, as well as on the nature of the socio-economic structure and type of formation. In accordance with this political systems were divided into slave, feudal, bourgeois and socialist.

In domestic philosophical and political literature, for a long time it was believed that the criterion according to which the types of political systems should be classified is the socio-economic formation, the economic basis of society. In accordance with this criterion, the following were distinguished: slave-owning, feudal, bourgeois and socialist political systems.

The basis of typologization may be the forms and methods of functioning of political systems. The basis of such an analysis was laid by M. Weber. He denied the economic determinism of the types of political systems. Rigid attachment to the economic structure of society is not always, but in his opinion, it can explain why different types political systems. The key, from his point of view, is the determining method of ruling, determined by the social nature of the era, the level of development of civil society, the expectations and demands of the masses, the methods of justifying power, and the abilities of the elite.

Depending on the orientation towards the types of domination and legitimacy, political systems are divided into traditional, charismatic, rational. The process of political development is presented to M. Weber as a transition from traditional, charismatic systems to political systems: liberal, rational, pluralistic.

The Weberian approach had a great influence on modern development typology of political systems. The classification of the French sociologist J. Blondel is very popular. He divided the political systems according to the content and forms of government into the following types: liberal; radical authoritarian or communist (characterized by the equality of social benefits and disregard for liberal means of achieving it); traditional (uneven distribution of material and social benefits is supported, controlled by the oligarchy, management is inherent in the method of conservatism); populist (the desire for equality by authoritarian methods and means of control); authoritarian-conservative (preserve the existing inequality by "hard" means).

Volumetric typology) of political systems can be represented on the basis of the analysis of the works of German political scientists D. Berg-Schlosser, H. Mayer, T. Stamenn. Their classification is based on the principle of leaderism (personal or group). Because of this, there are such varieties of political systems as traditional (based on a religious cult), static and modernized oligarchies, a fascist system, praetorian (low level of institutionalization, personal or group interest elevated to the principle of "common good"), communist, "educational "democracy (the goal is the education of the masses in political life; legitimacy is based on the interweaving of rational and charismatic elements; etatism). From the point of view of the authors, the most viable is the parliamentary-democratic political system, which is based on a multi-party system, a high level of political culture and political activity, and a developed system of control over the activities of state power.

The systematic approach allows classifying political systems for various reasons, depending on the direction of the study.

So, G. Almond focuses on the socio-cultural environment. He based his typology on various political cultures. The main thing is to identify the values ​​that underlie the functioning and formation of political systems. G. Almond distinguishes four types of political systems: Anglo-American, continental European, pre-industrial and partially industrial, totalitarian.

The Anglo-American system (USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.) is characterized by a homogeneous and pluralistic political culture. It is homogeneous in the sense that the vast majority of subjects of the political process share the fundamental principles of the political system, generally accepted norms and values. Political culture is based on the idea of ​​human freedom, recognition of the legitimacy of all interests and positions, tolerance prevails between them, which creates conditions for a strong alliance between society and the elite and the development of a realistic political course. Political parties, interest groups, social movements and associations, the media - as role structures - enjoy a significant degree of freedom.

Each separate individual can simultaneously belong to many mutually intersecting interest groups. This type of political system is characterized by a clear organization, high stability, rationality, development of functions and distribution of power between its various elements. Anglo-American political culture is also based on anti-statism, egalitarianism, secularism and individualism.

The continental European system (France, Germany, Italy, etc.) is distinguished by the fragmentation of political culture, which has a common base as a whole. It is characterized by the coexistence of old and new cultures, the society is divided into many subcultures with their own values, behavioral norms, stereotypes, sometimes incompatible with each other. Opportunities for interest groups, parties and social movements to translate the needs and demands of the people into a political alternative is limited, but the efforts and capabilities of other social organizations (religious, national, etc.) stimulate contradictions between different subcultures. As a result, the political order and political stability and sustainability are under threat. In general, these systems are strongly influenced by etatism, elements of authoritarianism (for example, the political systems of the countries of Central Europe).

Pre-industrial and semi-industrial political systems (many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America) have a mixed political culture: traditional institutions of values, norms, orientations and attributes of the Western political system (parliament, bureaucracy, etc.) coexist. Moreover, the very conditions for the formation of such a political culture are accompanied by a violation of customs, traditions, ties that were considered sacred, and a growing sense of instability. In search of order and protection, people turn to a charismatic leader. These processes in terms of communication and coordination complicate relations in society. The political system of this type is characterized by an indistinct separation of powers, restriction of freedom, and the use of violence.

In political systems of a totalitarian type (examples are fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, former socialist countries), according to G. Almond, there is a forced type of political activity, power is concentrated in the hands of the bureaucracy and is controlled, as a rule, by one monolithic party, there is no possibility of implementing private interest and the creation of voluntary public associations.

One of the most famous developments in the typology of political systems is the classification of G. Almond and D. Powell. In his work "Comparative Politics: A Dynamic Approach" (1966), "role differentiation" and "cultural secularization" are considered as criteria for typology. If the first criterion is associated with the degree of specialization of roles, strengthening the autonomy of institutions, then the second is based on the ratio of emotional and rational components of political culture. Based on these parameters, they attempted to create a general historical classification of political systems, in which three classes are distinguished: primitive - with minimal differentiation of organs and patriarchal culture, focused on primitive structures: clan, clan, tribe; traditional - with low governmental differentiation and a tributary culture such as Egypt of the pharaohs, feudal France of the 12th century. and etc.; modern - with a differentiated infrastructure of state and non-state institutions and a culture of participation in politics.

The latest version of the typology of political systems by G. Almond and D. Powell, published in the work "Comparative Politics Today", involves the allocation of one complex criterion - "management strategy", showing certain results of the functioning of a particular political system. As a result, the authors distinguish two large classes of countries: pre-industrial and industrial. In turn, the former are subdivided into non-traditional (the zone of Tropical Africa), populist (some countries in Asia and Latin America) and authoritarian (for example, regimes with a technocratic strategy of mobilizing the population such as Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, etc.). Industrialized countries are divided into democratic (conservative and social-liberal) and authoritarian (radical and conservative) systems, which differ in their institutional structure and ways of mobilizing citizens.

Further, if the typology is based on the nature of interaction with the environment, then political systems can be divided into open and closed (completely closed systems do not exist). In principle, closed systems are short-lived due to their inherent entropy processes, have weak links with the external environment, are not receptive to the values ​​of other systems, and are self-sufficient. Open political systems are actively influenced by external conditions and factors and, in turn, have the opposite effect on them. They are dynamic and mobile, actively exchanging resources with the outside world, assimilating the values ​​of advanced systems.

If the classification is based on an orientation towards stability or change, then political systems can be conditionally divided into conservative and transforming ones. The main goal of a conservative political system is to maintain the traditional structures that have developed in the political, economic and cultural spheres, and especially the forms and methods of exercising political power. Transforming political systems are focused on reforms, constant modernization, they are dynamic. In turn, the transforming political systems are divided into reactionary and progressive, depending on the goals and guidelines of social development.

Particularly popular in political science is the classification of political systems based on the analysis of methods, methods and means of exercising political power, the degree of political freedom in society, the legal status of the individual, forms of combining the principles of authoritarianism and democracy. There are authoritarian and democratic political systems.

Authoritarian political system is distinguished by the rejection of the principle of separation of powers, the strengthening of executive power, the limitation of the election of state bodies, the significant restriction or elimination of basic democratic human rights and freedoms, the prohibition of opposition parties and organizations, etc. Sometimes authoritarian systems are characterized by the militarization of the state apparatus, the use of political authoritarianism in governance. This may be due to periods of exacerbation of social contradictions in society or within the ruling party, with a crisis in the political system itself and, above all, in state power.

Authoritarian power structures in different countries far from the same and we can talk about some varieties of authoritarian political systems: oligarchic, monocratic, military-dictatorial, totalitarian, etc.

Democratic political system characteristic: the presence of representative bodies of power, formed on the basis of general elections; recognition of the political rights and freedoms of citizens to such an extent that allows not only parties and organizations that support government policy, but also opposition parties and organizations to legally operate; allowing for factionalism within the ruling party; the construction and functioning of the state apparatus on the principle of a strict "separation of powers", with the parliament being considered the only legislative body; recognition and implementation in practice of the principles of constitutionality and legality, etc.

It must be borne in mind that democratic systems do not represent some kind of stereotype, the features of which are automatically repeated in different countries. Moreover, when characterizing democratic systems, it is necessary to take into account the level of economic and social development, political course, forms of government, the presence of civil society and the rule of law, etc.

Thus, within each type of political system there are many modifications, which are explained by the peculiarity of the relationship between the state and society, political forces, branches of power, style of political leadership, form of government and other factors. Moreover, similar socio-economic relations can be served by political systems that are different in structure and content, but similar political systems can also lead to different results.

The classification of political systems into traditional and modernized in terms of the process of political development is quite common. Traditional systems are based on an undeveloped civil society, rather low differentiation of political roles and functions, and a charismatic way of justifying power. In modernized systems, on the contrary, there is a developed civil society, a high status of public opinion, a diversification of political roles, and a rational way of justifying power.

There are other options for classifying political systems. The variety of existing modern world political systems indicates that the process of their formation and functioning is influenced by many factors: historical and cultural traditions, economic and social development, the maturity of civil society, pluralism, the level of ideological freedom, geopolitical factors, etc. The predominance of certain factors determines their features and uniqueness.

The political system, functioning in conditions of constant change, the balance of power and interests, solves the problem of ensuring social dynamics within the framework of sustainable and stable development. The constant search for dynamic stability and stability is essential and indispensable in the functioning of the political system.

The term "political stability" appeared in British and American political science, where it was used to analyze changes in the political system and search for optimal mechanisms for its functioning. Despite the rather frequent use of the concept of "stability", in scientific papers no unambiguous interpretation has yet emerged. Nevertheless, the concept of "stability" can be legitimately used to characterize fairly complex systems that retain their identity and operate under conditions of relative instability.

In general theoretical terms, such a category as "stability" is close to the concept of "stability". Resilience defines processes in terms of their ability to sustain change in given parameters, and also indicates the ability of the system to restore disturbed equilibrium. Sustainable development refers to development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the capabilities of future generations. Stability does not necessarily mean immutability, although it may include it as a special case. More often, sustainability means the constancy and predictability of change. And this brings this category closer to the concept of "stability".

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

The state of political stability cannot be understood as something frozen, unchanging, given once and for all. Stability is considered as the result of a constant process of renewal, which rests on a set of unstable equilibria between system-forming and system-changing processes within the system itself. In the conditions of intensively ongoing social reforms and modernization, the effectiveness of the planned changes in all other spheres of public life depends on the stability of the political system. With significant potential, such a system can not only maintain stability, but also stimulate the necessary changes. The stability of a particular political system over a period of time does not indicate the absence of changes, but the presence system ability to changes in goals, leadership and tactics.

Important components of political stability are the legitimacy and effectiveness of power. The main thing in political stability is to ensure order, which is manifested in the legitimacy, certainty, effectiveness of the activities of power structures, in the constancy of the norms and values ​​of political culture, the familiarity of types of behavior, the stability of political relations. It is known that the greatest successes have been achieved by those societies that have traditionally been guided by the values ​​of order. On the contrary, the absolutization of the value of changes in society led to the fact that the resolution of problems and conflicts was achieved at a high price. In order for development and order to coexist, there must be coherence, consistency, phased changes and, at the same time, a realistic program capable of connecting ends with means - resources and conditions.

The problem of the legitimacy of political power is considered quite extensively in the works of M. Weber, who proceeded from the fact that legitimacy is a factor that allows stabilizing the relations of political domination in society. For M. Weber, T. Parsons and others, legitimacy acts as the most important resource, guarantor and necessary condition for the stability of the structures and procedures of state power in society, especially if the government carries out socio-economic development in the interests of society as a whole.

The concept of "efficiency" was introduced into circulation by S. Lipset in his work "The Political Man. The Social Basis of Politics" (1960). S. Linset believed that the stability of power is determined by two parameters - the legitimacy and economic efficiency of power. Moreover, the very legitimacy of power structures can be achieved either due to the continuity of established norms, or due to the acquisition by the system itself of the ability, even abandoning traditional norms, to solve urgent problems of the development of society (this is the effectiveness of power). Adequate political leadership, skillful use and transformation of existing political institutions expand the meaning of effective power, helping to reduce the potential for social violence (unauthorized strikes, rallies, demonstrations, terrorism, etc.) and ensure the integration of society.

The balance between stability and change (reforms, modernization) is one of the most important indicators of the effectiveness of the political system. Political stability includes three levels: the stability of the political leadership, the stability of the political regime, the political stability of society as a whole.

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain social order dominated by a system of connections and relations that reflect the commonality and continuity of goals, values ​​and means of their implementation. At the same time, stability is the ability of subjects of socio-economic and political life to resist both internal and external influences that disrupt the system and neutralize them. In this understanding, stability is perceived as the most important mechanism for the life support and development of the social system.

The parameters for assessing the stability of the functioning of the political system are:

• the stability of the main political institutions and the effectiveness of the principle of separation of powers and the existence of weights and balances;
• correspondence of the political culture of the society to its political structure;
• solution of the ruling elite of the main tasks of social development;
• recognition of power, its support and trust in it by the people and a number of other factors.

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

The degree of political order is also influenced by the dynamics of social interests of different levels of community and ways to ensure their interaction. It is important here not only to take into account the specifics, autonomy of interests, the multiplicity of activity orientations, but also an understanding of their compatibility. In society, there should be zones of coordination of interests and positions, uniform rules of conduct that would be accepted by all participants in the political process as an order. The formation of a political order takes place on the basis of the existence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

As for the ways of regulating the dynamics of the social interests of society, they can be confrontational (conflict) and consensus.

The first type proceeds from the possibility of overcoming or even sometimes eliminating a certain group of interests. In this case, violence is considered the only force for political integration, for achieving order. It is regarded as effective method solutions to emerging problems. The consensus type of regulation of social relations proceeds from the recognition of the presence of different social interests and the need to coordinate them on the fundamental problems of development. This consensus is based on general principles, values ​​shared by all participants in political action. The most dangerous thing for the political order is the loss of confidence in political and moral values ​​and ideals on the part of the people.

Political stability and political order are achieved, as a rule, in two ways: either by dictatorship or by the broad development of democracy. Stability, achieved through violence, suppression, repression, is historically short-lived, has an illusory nature, since it is achieved "from above" without the participation of the masses and the opposition. Another thing is stability based on democracy, a broad social base, and a developed civil society. A political system capable of combining different interests, instilling skills for cooperation and harmony, coordinating group and corporate activities, can be classified as stable and efficient systems.

The classification of political stability can be carried out on various grounds. According to the territorial scope, political stability is divided into local, regional, federal and global. Local political stability is inherent in the minimum number of interacting national-territorial or administrative-territorial units that have common administrative boundaries. With it, there are no conflicts or contradictions in relation between subjects and. With regional political stability, the number of interacting territorial entities increases. General federal political stability extends to the entire territorial space of the country and testifies to the sustainable development of the political situation in all its regions. A feature of global political stability is the absence of a world war and any threats to the real politics of the survival of mankind.

According to the degree of reliability, political stability can be characterized by three levels: high, medium, low. A high level is characterized by sustainable economic development of society, effective

a system of social guarantees, observance of the personality, successful resolution of emerging contradictions by the government, etc. The average level of political stability implies the predominance of democratic processes in society; security in the main of the rights and freedoms of the individual; compliance with the strategic course of development of the country chosen and supported by the people, etc. A low level of political stability corresponds to a period of sharp aggravation of social contradictions, polarization of the living standards of the people, activity of the political opposition, etc.

Stability is made up of the attitude of the population towards the existing political power; the possibilities of the political regime to take into account the interests of various groups and coordinate them; the position and condition of the elite itself; the nature of relations within society itself.

According to the spheres of influence, political stability is divided into internal and external. The internal sphere is a condition for the successful implementation of reforms, the implementation of policies in order to achieve civil peace and harmony, and the establishment of social order. The external sphere of political stability is realized as cooperation develops between different states in upholding peace and preventing armed conflicts and includes two sides: political and military-political. The political side plays a leading role.

Political stability can be achieved by democratic and authoritarian methods. Democratic political stability is characterized by the absence of social upheavals in society; favorable conditions for the development of freedom and equality of citizens; respect for human rights and freedoms; refusal to use military force in conflict resolution; compliance with the norms of international law, etc. Authoritarian political stability is achieved mainly due to the establishment of a dictatorial political regime and the dominance of military-political forces in society. This type of stability is characterized by the restriction of human rights and freedoms, strict censorship of the media, restriction of the activities of the opposition, etc.

The main subjects of domestic political stability are the state and the political institutions of society. Moreover, depending on their activity, they can act as not only subjects, but also objects of the political process. There are two types of internal political stability: mobilization and autonomous.

Mobilization stability arises in social structures, where development is initiated "from above", while the society itself is, as it were, mobilized to achieve the goal for a certain period. Mobilization stability can be formed and function as a result of crises, conflicts, general civil upsurge or through open violence, coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant factor may be the interest of the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take the responsibility to express the interests of society and are able to provide a breakthrough for society in this period of time. The physical and spiritual potential of the leader can serve as the main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability; military status and combat readiness of the regime; state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society, capable of separating the bearer of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; moods in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems do not feel the need to change as long as the status quo allows them to maintain social positions. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general impulse or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

Offline stability type, those. independent of the desire and will of any specific social and political subjects, arises in society when development begins "from below" by all structures of civil society. No one specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. There is a unity of power and society, 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 by legitimizing power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of managerial functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only under conditions of a gradual strengthening of the positions of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts are legalized here and resolved in civilized ways within the framework of the existing system, the belief in the prosperity of the country in comparison with others is cultivated, and the dynamics of prosperity growth is maintained.

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

There are absolute, static and dynamic political stability.

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

Static stability characterized by the creation and preservation of immobility, constancy of socio-economic and political structures, connections, relationships. It rests on ideas about the inviolability of social foundations, a slow pace of development, the need to preserve conservative traditions in the dominant ideology, create adequate stereotypes of political consciousness and behavior, etc. However, the viability of a political system of a similar degree of stability is extremely limited and "considering stability as a" mechanical sum individual indicators... does not make it possible to assess the underlying development trends and hidden factors of destabilization..." .

This state may be the result of rigid resistance to both external and internal changes (closed systems). Sometimes political systems of static stability try to improve their condition by, say, conducting an "active" external and domestic policy: militarization, expansion, aggression, etc. But, as a rule, if these attempts at modernization do not coincide with time, do not take into account the objective progressive course of development, do not rely on a broad social base of interests, do not take into account geopolitical opportunities and the reaction of the world community, then destruction occurs political system and the transformation of a "closed" society into a more mobile social entity capable of adapting to changing conditions.

The current state of the social environment is characterized by a new dynamic level of political stability. This level has been developed by "open" societies that have learned the mechanism of renewal and consider socio-economic and political changes within the existing socio-political environment as a stabilizing factor. They are able to perceive and assimilate internal and external impulses that transform them, organically include in the democratic process mechanisms not only to prevent, but also to use conflicts to maintain the stability of the political system. An important principle is laid down here, when a system is understood as a set of elements that undergo continuous changes and form a single whole, the structure of which controls the behavior of this system.

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

In a society with many problems of economic, social and political development, democracy complicates the solution of problems of political stability. In conditions of economic inequality, the absence of civil society, acute conflicts, and the large number of marginal strata, democracy can turn out to be a very risky form of development. The democratic type of development in liberal, pluralistic systems has other possibilities. "In democratic states where the polarization of society is strong, a situation often arises when a small accident in parliamentary elections can lead to a serious change in the balance of power in the upper echelons of power. Political stability comes ... after one of the parties receives a parliamentary majority" .

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

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

The balance of interests ensures the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system, the necessary degree of approval and acceptance of democratic rules and norms of political behavior. But it is important not only the readiness of citizens to defend alternative goals and thereby contribute to the process of adapting the political system to new situations and changes, but also the presence of social trust, tolerance (tolerance), political consciousness, cooperation, respect for the law and loyalty to political institutions.

Political stability is based on a rigid separation of powers, the presence of a system of checks and balances in the functioning of various branches of power. A large stream of "filters" - interest groups, pressure groups, parties, parliamentary commissions and committees - can reduce the quantitative and qualitative overload of the political system to a minimum. Reducing the social space for direct, direct forms of pressure (participation) on the activities of the executive branch, multi-stage, articulation and aggregation of interests can support political order and political stability.

Among the methods used by the political elite to ensure political stability are the following: socio-political maneuvering; political manipulation; the introduction of opposition forces into the political system and their gradual adaptation and integration; information openness and dialogue; use of force and some other methods.

The dissatisfaction of the masses with the policy of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis, destabilizes society as a whole and its subsystems. It is the contradiction between the government and society that is the main reason for the instability of society. At the moment of elections, for example, the political system itself loses its stability. The vertical of power that developed in the previous period is being tested. Public sentiment is highly unstable. All this can lead to further imbalance of the system.

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

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

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be considered as the problem of the optimal ratio of continuity and modification due to internal and external incentives.

conclusions

• 1. The political system is a set of state, political and public organizations, associations, political and legal norms, principles of organizing and exercising political power in society. It includes institutional, functional, regulatory, communicative and ideological components, each of which has its own specific structure, forms of organization and modes of expression. The main institutions of the political system are the state and political parties. The vital activity of the political system is manifested in the process of performing its functions. The main functions of the political system are managerial, mobilization, integrative, goal-setting, protection of basic political values, ensuring continuity and stability.
• 2. The modern understanding of the political system is associated with the development of issues of power on the basis of structural-functional, information-communicative and systemic approaches. In political science, several models of the functioning of the political system have been developed. Classical are the models of American scientists D. Easton, G. Almond, C. Deutsch. At present, many provisions of these universal theories of political systems are becoming analytical tools of social life.
• 3. The multidimensionality of political life, the possibility of analyzing it from the standpoint of a variety of criteria, formed the basis for the classification of political systems. The main criterion of the typology is political power and the nature and direction of socio-economic and cultural development predetermined by it. Not less than important indicators are the volume, methods and possibilities for the realization of the rights and freedoms of citizens, pluralism, the level of political culture and other factors.
• 4. Political stability - a stable state of society that allows it to function effectively and develop in the face of external and internal influences, while maintaining its structure and ability to control the process of social change. Important components of political stability are the legitimacy and effectiveness of power. Political stability is based on the balance of interests of various social subjects of power, on optimal ratio succession and modification.
• See: Russian Society and Power on the Eve of Elections. Round table // Polis. 2012. No. 1. S. 152-153.

1

The article analyzes the concept and essence of the stability of the political system within the framework of modern political science concepts of the study of political systems. When revealing the tendencies and reasons for the stability (instability) of a political system, regulators become important, allowing it to bring its state to its original or more other positive qualitative state. The complexity and capacity of this phenomenon predetermines a wide range of scientific approaches. Attention is focused on various approaches to solving the problem of stability of the political system. The instrumental characteristics of some regulators of the stability of the political system are considered. It is concluded that they are potentially effective for balance, homeostasis and maintaining the stationary regime of stable functioning of the political system. The author supplements the existing approaches to research on this issue.

political system

political science

state

system stability

civil society

regulator

1. Anokhin M.G. Political system: transitional processes. - M.: RIC ISPI RAN, 1996. - 270 p.

2. Batanina I.A., Lavrikova A.A. Parameters of the political system as a factor in the development of political participation in the regions of the Central Federal District // Izvestiya Tulskogo state university. Humanitarian sciences. - 2013. - No. 1. - P. 124-134.

3. Boyko S.I. Stability vs ambivalence: options for political algorithms // Bulletin of the Russian State University for the Humanities. - 2013. - No. 1 (102). – C.108-118.

4. Diskin I.E., Fedorov V.V. Responsiveness of the modern Russian political system // Public opinion monitoring: economic and social changes. –2010. - No. 6 (100). - S. 004-011.

5. Kowalski E. Formation and development of constitutional statehood in Poland (historical and legal research). - St. Petersburg: Law Institute, 2010. - 328 p.

6. Korobov A.A., Ovchinnikov S.A. Information and political risks and stability of the political system in the conditions of democratic transit // Information security of regions. - 2012. - No. 1(10). - S. 110-115.

7. Kotlyarov I.V. The political system of Belarus: theoretical regulation and sociological understanding // Sociological almanac. - 2011. - No. 2. - S. 41-54.

8. Nazhmudinov G.M., Palatnikov D.E. Synergistic approach to the analysis of the socio-political environment of society // Bulletin of the Yaroslavl State University. P.G. Demidov. Series: Humanities. - 2009. - No. 1. - P.82-85.

9. Nikonenko S.A. Political parties as an institution of political organization of civil society // Bulletin of TSU. Humanitarian sciences. History and political science. -2011. - No. 10 (102). - P.278-282.

10. Shevchenko A.V. Sustainability of the political system: “communicative person” versus “political person” // Polis (Political Studies). - 2009. - No. 5. - S. 68-83.

The political system is one of the main categories of political science. It defines the most important boundaries within which political life is realized. The political system, both in scientific terminology and in everyday language, has become a common general concept. There is a consensus in political science that the political system is the core of politics and the foundational term for political analysis and the development of political theories. The concept of a political system has become fundamental for all those involved in the study of political theory in recent years. Currently, the concepts of political systems are the most powerful, at least in the field of comparative political science.

There are many concepts of a political system. American political scientists and sociologists define the political system in terms of social structures, procedures, and institutions that work together to find solutions to political problems. The French political school focuses on the broad mutual political relations that exist in the world system, adapted by society. The Polish scientist E. Kowalski believes that the political system consists of the state apparatus, political parties, organizations and social groups, both formal and informal, which participate in political activities, and also includes the general principles and rules of law governing their relations. Domestic political scientist M.G. Anokhin argues that the concept of a political system is based on two key points: on the one hand, it is a certain theoretical construction, a tool that allows you to reveal and describe the systemic qualities of various political phenomena. In this case, this category acts as a means of systemic analysis of politics... On the other hand, the specific meaning of the political system determines the true complex mechanism for the formation and functioning of power in society, implemented by various political actors.

At present, the concept of a political system is aimed not only at making a comparison with the structure and functioning of pre-existing societies, but also at analyzing the political realities of the “post-statist era”, in which the state is no longer presented only as a stably organized political structure of society. This definition shows the possibility of connecting the traditional state-political and the newly formed political-public spheres.

The political system is constantly exposed to various factors that directly or indirectly affect its stability, and this impact is asymmetric, uneven and multidirectional. The political system, like any other complex system, tries to maintain its stability at the expense of its potential. One way or another, it is determined by the nature of its interaction with civil society, the presence of direct and feedback. One of the approaches says that "the stability of a political system is the ability to maintain its development in a given direction (movement along the intended trajectory) and maintain the intended mode of operation, despite the perturbations affecting the system" . One of the tasks of studying the stability of the modern political system is due to the inability to maintain some given (existing) parameters of its progressive development, effective functioning, balance of political forces under the influence of external and internal factors. When diagnosing a political system, when revealing the essence of trends and the causes of its instability, tools that allow bringing its state to its original or more other positive qualitative state become important. Among such tools are the most appropriate ways, methods and procedures aimed at restoring the functions of the political system and achieving the desired results in the field of politics.

The stability of a political system is one of its properties, characterized by the potential ability to remain within the existing parameters and criteria, as well as to return to its original position under the influence of external and internal factors, while maintaining forward movement in a given set of political coordinates. Each specific political system is described by a certain number of parameters.

I.E. Diskin and V.V. Fedorov believe that “the stability of a political system means its equilibrium, balance at the “input” and “output”, i.e. compliance of political decisions and actions with the requirements of society. Violation of this balance in the form of "underload", i.e. insufficient response to demands, or "overload" - excessive, excessive response to the demands of society - creates instability in the political system, which can lead to a crisis in other areas. Tem greater value the ability of the political system as a whole and all its elements to adequately respond to public expectations and fears acquires in a situation of the global economic crisis.

Political systems have properties of structural, functional and dynamic stability. It is the violation of its stability that means the appearance in it of destabilizing processes that cannot be controlled and lead to the disintegration of the interaction of its elements. Possible random transformations can lead to a partial loss of stability of the system, and can also be a prerequisite for the purposeful development of self-organizing systems, which include political systems.

The asymmetry of the influence of factors on the stability of the political system is expressed in the fact that the intensity of their impact on it will differ significantly both in the degree of dependence on existing factors and in the level of the political system under consideration. For example, in modern conditions in most cases, the influence of economic factors will be more significant compared to the influence of social aspects, and for developed countries with a well-established legislative framework and law enforcement practice, the impact of legal factors will be less significant than for developing countries.

Different authors offer different approaches to solving the problem of stability of the political system. So, for example, G.M. Nazhmudinov and D.E. Palatnikov believe that the mechanisms of socialization and legitimation are the regulators of maintaining the stability of the political system. S.A. Nikonenko notes that a political party, as a basic institution of the political system of society, is a link between citizens and the state, ensuring the integrity and stability of the political system. The original approach is offered by I.V. Kotlyarov, in his opinion, it is necessary to use the political subsystem to ensure the stable and sustainable development of the social system without disintegrating it into separate elements. This requires the formation of a special subsystem that regulates power relations in society as a whole and in its various segments. S.I. Boyko considers the dependence of the stability of the political system on political ambivalence. It is clearly manifested in the citizens' assessment of election campaigns, in their attitude towards political parties in the context of the traditional personification of state power. A.V. Shevchenko connects the problem of the stability of the political system with the information properties of its structure. There are other approaches...

Let us consider some potentially effective, in our opinion, regulators of the stability of the political system, partly tested in some countries:

• partial or complete change of the government team is used as a normal practice in a number of democratic countries (for example, Italy). This kind of transformation involves a complete change in the structure of the state, creating the basis for a new political system. Sometimes this reorganization happens suddenly, often without preparation. But in this regard, it is worth noting that there are violent events and breakthroughs (for example, Ukraine). In this case, the new elite not only does not have a vision for a new organization of the state, but is often not at all ready to take on full power;
• transformation of legislation (for example, the Criminal Code, electoral regulations, etc.). The changes are aimed at softening the provisions related to non-democratic systems (certain guarantees of civil liberties, the ability to express one's views, allowing meetings, etc.). Also important is the emergence of citizens' associations in structures independent of the central government (associations, political parties);
• emergence and development of the opposition. The transition to a multi-party system in a number of countries was associated with the elimination of regulation, supervision and control in all areas of the life of the former ruling party, usually the communist one. This time period is characterized by the search for new guidelines for political development, the lack of coordination and the presence of elements of anarchy;
• formation of new elites. In the process of creating new elites, it is necessary to include a recruiting mechanism for those who were not directly involved in the initial breakthrough. In the future, there is a differentiation and diversification of the new elite. Reform democrats are replaced by conservatives, liberals or leftists (for example, Poland). At the stage of consolidation of small groups of society, there is an equilibrium of democratic systems;
• democratization of the central government. There are criteria (for example, the index of democracy) that evaluate: the nature of government, stability, efficiency, independence, government responsibility, as well as legislative and civil (public) control;
• development of public participation in the electoral process. Introduction of transparent and fair elections, development of parliamentarism and a multi-party system;
• the creation of non-governmental organizations, the effectiveness and stability of their activities, legal aspects, the development of free and independent trade unions and associations. In other words, the development of a real civil society;
• sovereignty of the media. Creating an environment for freedom of expression, independent journalism, freedom from pressure on journalists by the state... Free access to the Internet for all categories of citizens;
• self management. This regulator implies decentralization, the electoral process, the degree of competence of local authorities, the transparency and quality of regional communities;
• real justice. Implementation of constitutional reforms, observance of human and national minority rights, full compliance with the norms of the law, humane treatment of prisoners and suspects, implementation of equality (without discrimination), etc. - this is an incomplete list of possible characteristics of this regulator of the stability of the political system.

The analysis showed that there are other regulators of the stability of the political system. Among them are anti-corruption mechanisms, ways and means of optimizing the legislative process, political management technologies, etc.

In order to comprehend the essence of the political system of a particular country, it is necessary to consider its social structure, aspects of political life, major economic problems, and so on. So, for example, for a system analysis, a group of socio-political factors can be used (for example, tradition, public awareness, the quality of the functioning of political institutions, etc.); to study political elites and their influence on the subsystems of the political system, and especially on the functioning of the party system; consider the problems of interaction of elements both within the system itself and with the external environment, etc. In this regard, it is very important to analyze the internal sphere of economic, social and cultural manifestations of the functioning of society and the external environment. The economic system is defined as the type of basic production and the nature of management. The social system is determined by gender, education, professional hierarchy of society. Features of the cultural context are associated with the dominant ideas in society and the system of socio-political views. The political system is also influenced by other political systems in the external environment. The political system, as a rule, must be integrated with its environment through the mechanisms of transformation (for example, legal, social, ideological, political-technological).

Thus, from the point of view of systems analysis, a political system is one of many systems. When analyzing a political system, when revealing the essence of trends and the reasons for its stability (instability), functions (dysfunctions), tools (regulators) become important, allowing it to bring its state to its original or more other positive qualitative state. Among these are the most expedient ways, methods and procedures aimed at restoring and strengthening the functions of the political system and achieving the desired results in the field of politics.

Reviewers:

Avtsinova G.I., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Political Science and Social Policy, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Russian State Social University", Moscow;

Tarasov E.N., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Political Science and Social Policy, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Russian State Social University", Moscow.

Bibliographic link

Grishin O.E. STABILITY OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM: CONCEPT, APPROACHES, REGULATORS // Contemporary Issues science and education. - 2015. - No. 1-1 .;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=18121 (date of access: 01/17/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

POLITICAL STABILITY- the state of the political system, characterized by the presence of the necessary conditions and factors that ensure that society maintains its identity, civil peace and harmony on the basis of achieving a balance of interests of various social actors and political forces, timely legitimate resolution of emerging problems and contradictions in the field of politics with the help of statutory mechanisms and means.

In the history of political discourse, there have been various models of political stability. In antiquity, agreement (homonoia) was conceived as a harmonic ratio that has a numerical character. Thus, Solon's reforms proceeded from harmony, established by means of precise proportions and ensuring agreement between the various groups of the policy (2/1, 3/2, 4/3).

In the Middle Ages, political stability was achieved through the strength of tradition and authority. christian church.

In modern times, in connection with the separation of powers, the model of balance between them, achieving a balance between various political forces, became the decisive model. The differentiation of the political system of modern society, the pluralism of its political forces significantly complicate the achievement of social integration. Nowadays, the relative nature of political stability, which is subject to fluctuations and is built on the basis of the ideas of a systematic approach and self-organization, is more and more recognized.

Political stability, as well as the stability of society, is due to the laws of functioning and development of society, the nature and methods of interaction of its subsystems, changes and evolution of which do not entail the destruction of the functional unity of the structure and their balance.

Political stability is ensured by the political system of society (its main element is the state) and the effectiveness of the implementation of its functions, which in turn depends on the mass support of citizens: 1) on the so-called "situational support", expressing public opinion's assessment of specific decisions taken by state bodies, public statements by political leaders in positions of power, the effectiveness of political action, and 2) from "systemic support", i.e. from the stability of positive assessments and opinions, indicating the approval by society of the activities of power structures in general, carried out by the state of internal and foreign policy. An important factor of "systemic" support is trust in political leaders and the political regime, the readiness of various social groups to defend their interests on the basis of and in accordance with the law, legal and moral norms.

Massive support for the political regime is also expressed in the acceptance by the majority of the population of the entire set of basic political values ​​(the principle of separation of powers, openness, multi-party system, pluralism of opinions, freedom of speech, independence of the media, etc.), which determine the nature and methods of functioning of this political system.

The main conditions affecting the level of mass support for the existing political regime also include: the level of material security and social security of citizens; the existence of democratic institutions and mechanisms that ensure the participation of the population in the political process; security and legal guarantees of the individual.

Of particular importance is mass political support in the context of reforms, when society as a whole and its political system, in particular, are going through a period of transition from one state to another, becoming unbalanced for some time, and therefore less stable. Under these conditions, a contradiction and even a gap arises between the social norms and values ​​approved (implanted) by the power structures, and the social norms and values ​​that dominate in mass consciousness. In the mass consciousness, due to a number of reasons - inertia, a more steadfast adherence to fundamental values ​​- there may be a rejection of the norms and values ​​​​of the ruling groups, tension and even conflict between the masses and the authorities. It is important to bear in mind that in society there is always a competition of groups for leadership, a change of groups claiming a more prominent political role and a more significant political status. These groups, organized into political movements and parties, can lead the opposition in different forms. They will be the more successful, the more they reflect national interests and goals, cultural values ​​and mentality. Opposition groups are able to come to power provided they manage to mobilize and lead the masses, uniting them with ideological slogans and programs. Much here depends on a politically authoritative leader who is popular among the masses. In maintaining political stability, methods of struggle for power that have been established in society, codified in legal laws and have become legitimate, are of particular importance. The historical experience of illegitimate political struggle - from political conspiracies to political revolutions - shows that it is destructive for political stability and is fraught with the collapse of society. An illegitimate struggle for power can be both explicit and latent. Hidden forms of illegitimate struggle for power, without coming to the surface of public life, can seriously weaken the stability of the ruling regime, destroy its internal consolidation and ultimately lead to serious political upheavals.

Ensuring the political stability of society is achieved through legal guarantees for the security of the participation of citizens and political organizations in political activities, and especially in opposition (protest) movements that defend their political interests and claim political participation in power. In many democratic countries of the world, significant experience has been accumulated in political struggle (and primarily in the struggle for power) that does not lead to cataclysms and national upheavals. Reformed Russia has yet to gain such experience. Different countries have put forward and are implementing special stabilization programs, their experience of overcoming the economic and political crisis, restoring political stability without changing the socio-political system, modernizing the economy under state control and regulation, taking into account the difference in socio-political systems and historical conditions, national and state features in its adaptation is just as important for Russia.

Political stability depends on the level and nature of political activity, on the positions of political leaders, on their ability to express national interests and consolidate the political will of citizens, on their ability to critically analyze their activities, and on their observance of moral and legal norms.

An important condition for the political stability of society during the period of reforms is their legal security, achieved on the basis of the unity of the constitution (basic law), federal and local legislation. The system of laws existing in society must change in accordance with new conditions and new challenges of the time. An untimely change, lag or delay in the improvement of constitutional norms and current legislation has a destabilizing effect on political process, on the interaction of political subjects and branches of government.

An indicator of the political stability of a society is its ability to neutralize negative external influences (subversion, international terrorism, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, disinformation, the threat of force, etc.). Such negative impacts can bring the political system into a state of extreme instability and even destroy it. In this regard, the unleashing of a civil war or large-scale political violent acts by both supporters and opponents of the existing system is especially dangerous. Therefore, an adequate reaction of the state to a threat to its sovereignty, its social interests and the security of its citizens is so important.

Literature:

1. Political theory and political practice. M., 1994;

2. Semigin G.Yu. Political stability of Russian society in the context of reforms. M., 1996;

3. Parsons T. The system of modern societies. M., 1998;

4. Ivanov V.N. Russia: finding the future. M., 1998;

5. Russia: overcoming the national catastrophe. M., 1999.

POLITICAL STABILITY

POLITICAL STABILITY

POLITICAL STABILITY - a political system characterized by the presence of the necessary conditions and factors that ensure that society maintains its identity, civil peace and harmony based on achieving a balance of interests of various social actors and political forces, timely legitimate resolution of emerging problems and contradictions in the field of politics using the mechanisms provided for by law and funds.

In the history of political discourse, there have been various models of political stability. In antiquity (homonoia) was thought of as a harmonic ratio having a numerical . Thus, Solon's reforms proceeded from harmony, established by means of precise proportions and ensuring agreement between the various groups of the policy (2/1, 3/2,4/3).

In the Middle Ages, political stability was achieved through the strength of tradition and the authority of the Christian Church.

In New in connection with the separation of powers, the decisive model was the balance between them, achieving a balance between the various political forces. The differentiation of the political system of modern society, the pluralism of its political forces significantly complicate the achievement of social integration. Nowadays, the relative nature of political stability, subject to fluctuations and built on the basis of the ideas of a systematic approach and self-organization, is more and more recognized.

Political stability, as well as the stability of society; due to the laws of functioning and development of society, the nature and methods of interaction of its subsystems, changes and which do not entail the destruction of the functional unity of the structure and their balance. Political stability is ensured by the political system of society (its main element is ) and the effectiveness of the implementation of its functions, which in turn depends on the mass support of citizens: statements of political leaders in power, the effectiveness of political actions, and 2) from "systemic support", i.e. from the stability of positive assessments and opinions, indicating the approval of the society of the activities of power structures in general, the domestic and foreign policies pursued by the state. An important factor in “systemic” support is trust in political leaders and the political regime, the readiness of various social groups to defend their interests on the basis of and in accordance with the law, legal and moral norms.

Mass support for the political regime is also expressed in the acceptance by the majority of the population of the totality of the basic political values ​​(separation of powers, openness, multi-party system, opinions, freedom of speech, the media, etc.), which determine the nature and methods of functioning of this political system.

The main conditions affecting the level of mass support for the existing political regime also include: the level of material security and social security of citizens; the presence of democratic institutions and mechanisms that ensure the participation of the population in the political process; security and legal guarantees of the individual.

Particularly gains massive political support in the context of reforms, when in general and its political system, in particular, are going through a period of transition from one state to another, becoming unbalanced for some time, and therefore less stable. Under these conditions, there is even a gap between social norms and values, approved (implanted) by power structures, and social norms and values ​​that dominate in the mass consciousness. In the mass consciousness, due to a number of reasons - inertia, a more steadfast adherence to fundamental values ​​- there may be a rejection of the norms and values ​​​​of the ruling groups, tension, and even between the masses and the authorities. It is important to bear in mind that in society there is always competition for groups for, a change of groups that claim a more prominent political role and a more significant political one. These groups, organized into political movements and parties, can lead the opposition in various forms. They will be the more successful, the more they reflect national interests and goals, cultural values ​​and mentality. Opposition groups are able to come to power provided they manage to mobilize and lead the masses, uniting them with ideological slogans and programs. Much here depends on a politically authoritative leader who is popular among the masses. In maintaining political stability, of particular importance are those established in society, codified in legal laws and have become legitimate ways of fighting for. The history of illegitimate political struggle - from political conspiracies to political revolutions - shows that it is destructive to political stability and is fraught with the collapse of society. Illegitimate for power can have a clear and character. Hidden forms of illegitimate struggle for power, without reaching the surface of public life, can seriously weaken the ruling regime, destroy its internal consolidation and ultimately lead to serious political upheavals.

Ensuring the political stability of society is achieved through legal guarantees for the security of the participation of citizens and political organizations in political activities, and especially in opposition (protest) movements that defend their political interests and claim political participation in power. In many democratic countries of the world, significant experience has been accumulated in political struggle (and primarily in the struggle for power) that does not lead to cataclysms and national upheavals. Reformed Russia has yet to gain such experience. Different countries have put forward and are implementing special stabilization programs, their experience of overcoming the economic and political crisis, restoring political stability without changing the socio-political system, modernizing the economy under state control and regulation, taking into account socio-political systems and historical conditions, national and state characteristics with its adaptation is just as important for Russia.

Political stability depends on the level and nature of political activity, on the positions of political leaders, on their ability to express national interests and consolidate the political will of citizens, on critical analysis of their activities, on their observance of moral and legal norms.

An important condition for the political stability of society during the period of reforms is their legal security, achieved on the basis of the unity of the constitution (basic law), federal and local legislation. The system of laws existing in society must change in accordance with new conditions and new challenges of the time. Untimely, lagging behind or delaying the improvement of constitutional norms and current legislation has a destabilizing effect on the political, on the interaction of political subjects and branches of government.

An indicator of the political stability of a society is its neutralization of negative external influences (subversive, international terrorism, economic blockade, political pressure, blackmail, disinformation, the threat of force, etc.). Such negative impacts can bring the political system into a state of extreme instability and even destroy it. In this regard, the unleashing of a civil war or large-scale political violent acts by both supporters and opponents of the existing system is especially dangerous. Therefore, it is so important for the state to adequately address the threat to its sovereignty, its social interests and the security of its citizens.

Lit .: Political theory and political. M., 1994; Semigii G. Yu. Political stability of Russian society in the context of reforms. M., 1996; Pearson T. The system of modern societies. M., 1998; Ivanov VN Russia: finding the future. M., 1998; Russia: Overcoming a National Catastrophe. M., 1999.

G. Yu. Semigin

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

See what "POLITICAL STABILITY" is in other dictionaries:

A system of links between various political subjects, which is characterized by a certain integrity and the ability to effectively implement the functions assigned to it. Political Science: Dictionary Reference. comp. Prof. Paul of Sciences Sanzharevsky ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

English stability, political; German Stabilitat, politism. The ability of a watered system to function and persist for a long time without drastic changes. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

POLITICAL STABILITY- ability state system function for a long time without significant changes, ensuring systematic development, continuity of power, a favorable investment climate and economic growth. Probably the first state, ... ... Great current political encyclopedia

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

POLITICAL STABILITY- English. stability, political; German Stabilitat, politism. The ability of a watered system to function and persist for a long time without drastic changes ... Dictionary in sociology

POLITICAL STABILITY- (political stability, from lat stabilis stable) a feature, characteristic, state of the political life of society, manifested in the stable functioning of all political institutions in society, in compliance with legal and political ... ... Power. Politics. public service. Dictionary

POLITICAL STABILITY- (Latin stabilis permanent, stable, Greek politike politics) the state of the political system, characterized by the stability of its main elements, stability in the performance of its functions and in relations with other political ... ... Political Dictionary-Reference

The sphere of culture that develops ideas about civilizational forms of politics, process, assessment of the level of its development. The concept of P. to. ambiguous, it includes watered, thought, connections between culture and watered, philosophy, assessment of watered. structures with a view… … Encyclopedia of cultural studies

MILITARY STABILITY- POLITICAL MILITARY-POLITICAL STABILITY ... Legal Encyclopedia