The development of any state is a process that can consist of a variety of components. It involves the authorities solving a variety of problems and the participation of a wide range of actors. The same can be said about one of the aspects of state building - the development of the political system. It also builds into a process. What might its characteristics be?

What is the political process?

Let's explore the process. What could be its definition? In Russian science, this is understood as a sequence of events, phenomena and actions that characterize the relationships of various subjects - people, organizations, authorities - in the sphere of politics.

The process under consideration can take place at different levels and in different spheres of social life. For example, it can characterize communications between subjects within one government agency or the entire government system, or take place at the municipal, regional or federal level.

The concept of a political process may imply a rather broad interpretation of the corresponding term. Moreover, each of its interpretations may mean the formation of independent categories within the framework of the phenomenon under consideration. Thus, various types of political processes are distinguished, which can be characterized by significant dissimilarity among themselves. Let's take a closer look at this feature.

Classification of political processes

In order to explore the types of political processes, it is necessary first of all to determine the possible grounds for classifying this phenomenon. What criteria might apply here?

In Russian science, there is a widespread approach according to which the political process can be divided into domestic political and foreign policy, depending on the nature of the key subjects directly influencing its course.

Another basis for classifying political processes is classifying them as voluntary or controlled. Here, the described phenomenon is considered in terms of the characteristics of the mechanisms of participation of subjects in relevant communications.

There are such forms of the political process as open and shadow. The key criterion here is the publicity of the subjects influencing the relevant phenomena.

There are revolutionary and evolutionary types of political processes. The key criterion in this case is the time frame during which certain changes are implemented at the level of communication between subjects, and in many cases, the methods by which they are implemented.

Political processes are also divided into stable and volatile. In this case, what matters is how stable and predictable the behavior of the subjects influencing the course of the phenomenon under consideration can be.

Let us now study the specifics of the development of political processes within the framework of the noted classification in more detail.

Foreign policy and domestic political processes

So, the first basis for classifying the phenomenon under consideration is the classification of its varieties as foreign policy or domestic policy. The process classified as the first type involves the participation of subjects who are directly related to the institutions of government and society that function within a single state. These could be people holding positions in government, heads of enterprises, public structures, parties, or ordinary citizens. The foreign policy process assumes that its course is influenced by subjects of foreign origin - heads of state, foreign corporations and institutions.

Some researchers highlight communications carried out exclusively at the international level. Thus, a process is formed. Events and phenomena characteristic of it may at the same time influence the state of affairs in individual states - for example, if we are talking about discussions regarding the writing off of external debts in relation to a country, or the imposition of sanctions.

Voluntary and controlled processes

The next basis on which certain types of political processes are determined is the classification of the phenomena under consideration as voluntary or controlled. In the first case, it is assumed that subjects influencing the course of relevant events act on the basis of personal political will, guided by their beliefs and priorities. This can be expressed, for example, in the participation of people in the elections of the head of state. Attendance at them is voluntary, as is the choice of candidate. Controlled political processes assume that the subjects influencing them act on the basis of the requirements of the law or, for example, due to administrative influence from authorized structures. In practice, this can be expressed, for example, in the presence of visas required by one state for the entry of citizens of another: in this way the migration aspect of the international political process is controlled.

Public and shadow processes

The next basis for classifying the phenomenon under consideration is classifying its varieties as open or shadow. Political processes of the first type assume that the subjects influencing it conduct their activities publicly. This is what happens in most developed countries: in particular, people elect a president from among candidates who are known to everyone. The procedures for electing the head of state are fixed in laws and are available to everyone for review. The president, whom the people elected, has powers known to everyone and implements them. But there are countries in which senior officials are also elected, but real ones can be accepted by non-public entities, the essence of which is incomprehensible to ordinary citizens, and access to relevant information is closed. In the first case, the political process will be open, in the second - shadow.

Revolutionary and evolutionary political processes

Political processes may vary depending on the methods by which their subjects carry out certain activities, as well as the speed of changes that characterize certain aspects of communications. Regarding evolutionary processes: methods, as a rule, are based on the provisions of sources of law - laws, regulations, orders. Changing them involves quite time-consuming parliamentary and administrative procedures. But in case of instability in the state, the sources that predetermine the methods used by the subjects of the political process can become slogans, manifestos, demands that are not related to existing laws. As a result, events and phenomena that are not typical for the first scenario are possible. Thus, a revolutionary political process is formed. It often happens that significant changes affect the entire structure of government.

Stable and volatile processes

The political process - in society, in the international arena - can be characterized by stability or, conversely, volatility. In the first case, the subjects influencing the relevant events and phenomena will rely on norms and customs that do not change noticeably over a long period of time.

In the second scenario, it is possible to turn to sources containing provisions that can be interpreted or changed quite freely due to the preferences of the subjects of the political process.

Structural components of the political process

Let us now study the structural aspect of the phenomenon under consideration. What are the common theses of Russian researchers regarding this issue? The structure of the political process most often involves the inclusion of the following components:

Subject (authority, public, political structure or specific citizen capable of influencing the course of relevant events and phenomena);

Object (the area of ​​activity of the subject, characterizing the purpose of his actions, priorities, preferences);

Methods on which the subject relies when solving his problems;

Resources at the disposal of the subject of the political process.

Let's study in more detail the specifics of each of the noted points.

The essence of the subjects of the political process

So, the structure of the political process presupposes the inclusion of subjects in it. These most often become government bodies as independent institutions or specific ones. The political process in Russia, as many researchers note, is characterized by the significant role of the individual in the relevant sphere of communications. On the scale of the entire state, the key role can be played by the president, in the region - by its head, in the city - by the mayor.

Objects of the political process

Their nature may be different. Thus, some researchers consider economic and political processes in a single context, considering the former to be a type of object for the latter. The development of the national economic system, business, solving problems of employment of citizens - these problems are relevant for any state.

Accordingly, the goal of the subjects of the political process, who are senior officials, may be to achieve positive results in the relevant areas of work. That is, the economy in this case will be the object of the political process.

Methods of the political process

The nature of the methods in question can also vary significantly. A subject of power, called upon to solve problems of modernizing the economic system of the state and other problems, must first of all somehow obtain his position. In this case, we are talking about methods based on which a person can take power into his own hands.

The political process in Russia assumes that these will be elections - at the level of a municipality, region or country as a whole. In turn, the actual solution of problems, for example, in modernizing the economy, will be implemented on the basis of a different method - lawmaking. For example, it can initiate the adoption of certain legal acts aimed at stimulating the development of the country's economy.

Resources for the Political Process

The subject of power may have at his disposal the most effective methods for solving the assigned tasks, but if he does not have the necessary resources at his disposal, then it will not be possible to implement the plans. How can the corresponding component of the political process be represented?

First of all, this is, of course, capital. If we talk about politics, these can be budget funds or borrowed funds. The term “resource” can also be interpreted in a slightly different way - as a certain source for maintaining the legitimacy of power. This will no longer necessarily be finance. Such a resource can be the expression of the will of people, citizens of the state. It is formed in this way, implying constant interaction between government and society. At the same time, by analogy with the financial sector, a resource in this case can be understood as a credit of trust on the part of citizens, which the subject of public administration must justify.

So, the term “political process” that we are considering can be understood, on the one hand, as a set of events and phenomena that are observed at one or another level of communications, and on the other hand, as a category with a complex structure, including rather dissimilar elements. In turn, the individual components of the political process will also be characterized by complexity, and their essence can be interpreted through a variety of approaches.

Introduction

Political science studies not only political institutions, for example, the state, parties, the essence of politics and political power, but also the processes of developing and making political decisions, the interaction of governments, parliaments, parties and other political forces. The reasons for the emergence of a particular political problem are examined, how this problem gets on the agenda of society, how management institutions react to it, and what decisions are made on it. In other words, we are talking about political practice, organizational and control activities, specific management, selection and placement of personnel, discussion and decision-making, exchange of information between subjects of the political process and much more. This is the political process, which is formed and directed primarily by the forces in power who make the main political decisions.

Sometimes the political process is compared to the two-faced Janus - the Roman deity of doors, entrance and exit, every beginning, one face of which is turned to the past, the other to the future. Like it, the political process is connected with the past and directed towards the future, although it takes place in the present tense. It reflects political reality, which does not develop according to the wishes of leaders and the instructions of scientists, but is the result of the interweaving, struggle of interests of various political forces, social groups, the behavior of these groups and citizens, their ideas about what they would like to receive from the government and the state. Living people act in the political process with their hopes, expectations, prejudices, level of culture and education.

The political process appears as a result of the mutual influence of groups, as the actions of the government and their impact on the state of society.

Political process

The essence of the political process

The term “process” (from the Latin processus - advancement) usually characterizes a certain movement, a move, an order of movement that has its own direction; sequential change of states, stages, evolution; a set of sequential actions to achieve a result.

The political process is a consistent, internally connected chain of political events and phenomena, as well as a set of sequential actions of various political subjects aimed at gaining, retaining, strengthening and using political power in society. The political process is the cumulative and consistent activity of social communities, socio-political organizations and groups, individuals pursuing certain political goals; in a narrow sense - purposeful and related activities of social and institutional subjects of politics over a certain period of time to implement political decisions.

The political process as a whole: the course of development of political phenomena, the totality of actions of various political forces (subjects of politics), movements seeking the implementation of certain political goals; the form of functioning of a certain political system of society, evolving in space and time; one of the social processes, as opposed to legal, economic, etc.; designation of a specific process with the end result of a certain scale (revolution, reform of society, formation of a political party, movement, progress of a strike, election campaign, etc.).

The political process acts as a functional characteristic of political life as a whole, determining the performance by subjects of power of their specific roles and functions. Analyzing the content of the political process along the “vertical”, we can say that it includes two main forms of political expression of citizens. Firstly, these are various ways for ordinary participants in the political process to present their interests in various types of political activity: participation in elections, referendums, strikes, socio-political movements, etc. Secondly, the adoption and implementation of management decisions carried out by political leaders and elites.

The goals that subjects of political activity set for themselves are different. They can be aimed at strengthening the political system, reforming it or destroying it. The motivation for certain goals lies in the needs and interests of people. Need means needing something interest aimed at creating conditions to meet needs. In politics, these include gaining or influencing power.

The main needs of people, the satisfaction of which political activity is aimed at, are economic and material needs. Political interests can also be generated by political needs themselves: in involvement in or exercise of power, in satisfying group or personal political ambitions (vanity, pride), as well as spiritual, cultural, moral, environmental problems, the solution of which is in one way or another connected with political decisions.

Needs become political interests and cause certain political actions when people realize that the satisfaction of needs and interests depends on their influence on power and changes in the political system. This awareness is helped by subjects of political activity, in particular political parties, which unite the most politically prepared, courageous people who are capable of taking action; personal sacrifices to achieve a set political goal.

Political elites, public organizations, social movements, labor collectives can also play a certain role in political activity regarding the replacement or change of power, nominating political leaders - the main conductors of the policy of a particular class or social group. In turn, outstanding personalities often act as organizers of political parties and social movements (for example, V.I. Lenin, L. Walesa, etc.).

The state has a special place in political processes. It is simultaneously both an object and a subject of political activity. Objectivity lies in the fact that the actions of political forces are most often directed at it. Subjectivity is manifested primarily in the fact that its functions include regulating the relationships between other subjects of political activity - classes, nations, political parties, etc. It also has the authority to make decisions leading to changes in the political system, including radical ones.

Political activity is realized in practical actions aimed at realizing political goals and implementing political programs. These actions are carried out in certain forms.

Usually there are two forms of political action--peaceful (non-violent) And violent.

The most important peaceful Political action is reform, by which we mean change, transformation, reorganization of aspects of social life while maintaining the foundations of the existing system. Reforms, unlike revolutions, do not involve a transfer of power from one class to another and promote economic and social progress.

Peaceful methods of political action include conformism(from lat. conformis-- similar, similar), i.e. opportunism, passive acceptance of the existing order, prevailing opinion, etc. Conformists have weak or no positions of their own. They obediently follow any political course and submit to a more powerful political entity or authority. In our society, many people have a conformist position manifested in the formulas “I’m a small person,” “my house is on the edge,” etc.

A peaceful, non-violent form of political action includes parliamentary ways and methods solving political problems, for example by amending the constitution, passing laws, making treaties, holding elections, and inter-party, inter-state and inter-group negotiations.

The most typical violent actions are war, revolution, counter-revolution, dictatorship, terrorism.

War -- it is an armed struggle between states, classes or ethnic communities. It can be interstate, civil, or international (interethnic). War, as the German military theorist K. von Clausewitz noted, is a continuation of state policy and political relations by other (violent) means.

Wars are especially dangerous in our time, the time of nuclear and chemical weapons, when any local war can lead to a worldwide military conflagration.

Revolution-- this is a qualitative change in the development of nature, society and knowledge (for example, geological, scientific and technical, cultural, social). A social revolution involves a radical revolution in the socio-economic and political structure of society. The first act marking the transition from one socio-economic formation to another is a political revolution, i.e. the conquest of political power by the revolutionary class. It can be carried out in peaceful and non-peaceful forms. The question of gaining power is the main question of any revolution.

Counter-revolution represents the reaction of the overthrown or overthrown class to the social revolution, the struggle to suppress the new government and restore the old order. Since the ruling (or dominant) classes do not voluntarily give up power, counter-revolutionary resistance in one form or another accompanies every revolution.

Dictatorship -- system of political domination, unlimited power of a group, an individual. Dictatorship is also a special way of exercising power using violent methods, repression, and armed force. Dictatorship is divided into revolutionary and authoritarian.

One of the extremist (extreme) methods of political action is terror. Terror (from Lat. terror -- fear) - reprisal against political opponents by violent means (murder, infliction of severe injuries), the use of various means to induce fear among political opponents and the population to destabilize the situation in the country or in a certain territory. In addition to murders, blackmail, hostage-taking, explosions of vehicles, buildings, etc. have been used. Recently, international terrorism has become widespread, used in interstate relations, as well as between various political forces consolidating on an international scale (various kinds of leftist organizations, religious, nationalist ).

In the process of democratization of Soviet society, a number of regions use spontaneous forms of mass political action: rallies, processions, strikes. Along with these civilized forms of manifestation of political views and various demands, there are many cases of aggressive crowd actions leading to human casualties.

Spontaneous behavior is most often a mass reaction of people to economic and political crises, to the deterioration of their social situation. Often spontaneous mass actions are irrational (unreasonable) in nature. They are used by forces seeking to divert people’s anger from themselves and direct it against the “image of the enemy” they form. They are often used by unscrupulous politicians to gain political capital.

The most amenable to mass political action are the so-called marginal strata, or lumpen. In ancient times they were called "ochlos" (rabble) in contrast to "demos" (people). This is where the concepts of “ochlocracy”—the power of the crowd—and “democracy”—the power of the people—come from. Often the crowd involves in its actions people with a higher social status, including representatives of the intelligentsia.

Along with the crowd come “leaders” who promise an easy way to solve economic and political problems, using racial, national, religious and other prejudices. The “leaders” need power, which they want to gain with the help of the crowd in conditions of fear or dissatisfaction of the masses with the existing situation.

Because of the anonymity of the crowd and its irresponsibility, a person is capable of actions (even murder) that he would never commit if he were alone. In a crowd, a person easily sacrifices his personal interests to collectivism. In it, he is easily susceptible to suggestion, mass hypnosis (for example, the influence on the crowd of Hitler, Kashpirovsky, musical ensembles, singers, football).

The transformation of such democratic forms of expression of political needs as demonstrations and rallies into a riot of a crowd with its aggressive, unconstructive actions cannot but cause concern among people. In this regard, the question of developing a democratic political culture, civilized forms of political activity and political participation among the population becomes even more pressing.

State bodies and other political subjects, influencing the relationships of various social groups, use a variety of types of regulatory activities: legal, managerial, organizational, educational, propaganda. They use various means of political influence: media and propaganda, political sciences, political education systems, literature and art, closely interacting with government bodies, parties and other public organizations, as well as the judicial system, public order and state security agencies, the army, etc.

1. Essence and types of political processes

1.1. The concept of the political process.

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

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

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

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

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

1.2. Structure and actors of the political process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When analyzing the political process, one should take into account the nature of the interaction between its subjects. It is important to note here that the nature of interaction largely depends on the scale of the political process and the actors. In particular, the nature of the interaction between the political system and the environment will be determined by the level of evolutionary development of the system and environment, for example, the degree of internal differentiation. At the same time, the nature of interaction between actors, in particular between a citizen and a certain party, will be determined by other parameters: institutional conditions, features of party development, the party’s place in the political system, socio-psychological features of development personalities, etc. In general, abstracting from the specifics of political processes and actors, most often the nature of interaction between actors is described in terms of confrontation, neutrality, compromise, alliance, consensus.

Two groups of factors in the political process can be distinguished: “internal” and “external”. “External” includes the environment (socio-economic, socio-cultural and other conditions) and its impact, systemic, but “external” political circumstances for a given political process, such as the rules and conditions of the political game, “external” political events and so on. “Internal” parameters include such parameters as the characteristics of actors, their goals and intentions, the distribution of power resources, the logic and “plot” of the political process.

An important parameter of the political process is its division into stages. Political processes of various kinds provide an example of a combination of different stages. The diversity and uniformity of processes leads to the fact that it is quite difficult to identify any stages common to all types of processes. The stages of functioning of the political system, the electoral process or the process of creating and functioning of a political party will be different. Therefore, identifying specific stages is advisable in relation to certain types of political processes.

Most interactions between political actors concern the exercise of public power. Due to this circumstance, the importance of the process of making and implementing political decisions is especially great. Analysis of this process is one of the most popular topics in foreign political science. There is no consensus among researchers regarding the number and content of its stages. Summarizing the various approaches, we can distinguish the following main phases:

Statement of the problem (collection of necessary information about existing problems, public demands and possible solutions, identification of primary and secondary problems);

Formulating alternative solutions;

Comparative analysis and selection of the most effective solution;

Formulating a government decision and its legitimation (through the adoption of laws, voting, etc.);

Implementation of decisions made;

Monitoring implementation and providing feedback.

If we turn to the process of functioning of the entire political system, then the set of stages will be significantly different, since the interaction of the system with the environment will be taken into account. At the same time, attempts known in science to identify the main stages of this process are also concentrated on the adoption and implementation of management decisions. The “classical set” of phases is the identification of the main stages by G. Almond and G. Powell:

1. Articulation of individual and group interests.

2. Aggregation of these interests (their combination in a single position).

3. Development of a political course.

4. Implementation of decisions made.

5. Monitoring the implementation of these decisions.

It should be noted that this model reflects only one type of political process and cannot be considered universal.

1.3. Political changes and their types.

Political changes represent a specific type of social change, associated primarily with changes in the mechanism of power regulation of society. The political system, under the influence of qualitative changes in the social environment, is constantly in motion and development. In fact, there are no two states of the same political system that are identical to each other. Consequently, political changes are transformations of institutional structures, processes and goals that affect the distribution and administration of power to manage a developing society. Political changes can occur either by adapting the system to new requirements of the social environment, or by replacing one system, unable to preserve itself, with another. Within a single society, political changes that have a widespread and lasting impact on society can be defined as a revolution. A revolution is a radical type of political change, as a result of which the previous political tradition is interrupted and a new political system is reproduced. IN XX century, the political process in Russia has repeatedly changed under the influence of revolutions. In 1905, twice in 1917 and in 1991, revolutionary changes took place in the political system of society, as a result of which state and political structures, processes and goals were transformed, affecting the distribution and administration of power to manage Russian society .

Revolution as a type of political change should be distinguished from a coup d'etat. The latter is a sudden and unconstitutional change of ruling elites, which in itself is not associated with any profound changes in social relations. Revolutions and coups d'etat are not the most common type of political change, although they always arouse constant public interest. The most common type of change is the adaptation of the system to new demands or changes in the social environment. This kind of change occurs constantly in any normally functioning political system. They may be associated with the redistribution of political influence within a given society, with the introduction of constitutional changes to the structure of power relations within the same political system, etc.

Conscious, systemic changes that have a broad and lasting impact on society, but reproduce the previous political system, can be defined as reform. Reforms lead to changes in the state of social and political relations within the existing political system. Therefore, the most important characteristic of the political process is the method or mode of exercising political power (reproduction of the political system). Reform of political relations, changing constitutional and legal methods and methods of exercising political power within the framework of one political system, creates a certain political regime. Consequently, the concept of a political regime characterizes the political process from the point of view of the functioning and self-reproduction of a certain political system of a given society.

Depending on the choice of constant and variable characteristics of political changes, two approaches have developed in political science: contextual and institutionalist. The first approach is based on the idea of ​​the primary role of social context, social environment, socio-economic, socio-cultural conditionality of political and institutional changes (R. Aron, R. Dahl, S. Lipset). The second approach focuses on the internal institutional structure of the political process. The nature and success of social change primarily depends on the level of political institutionalization. A wide variety of fluctuations in the social environment, economic crises and public protests are possible, but everything ultimately depends on the effectiveness and adaptive response of institutional mechanisms to manage society and maintain stability in it (S. Huntington, T. Skolpol, D. March).

The variety of sources and forms of political change is expressed in certain ways of existence of political phenomena, namely: functioning, development and decline.

Operationpolitical phenomena does not take relationships, forms of behavior of citizens, or the performance of their direct functions by institutions of state power beyond the framework of established basic meanings. For example, at the level of society as a whole, this is a way of maintaining the existing political system, reproducing the balance of forces that reflects their basic relationships, producing the main functions of structures and institutions, forms of interaction between the elite and the electorate, political parties and local governments, etc. With this method of change, tradition and continuity have undeniable priority over any innovation.

The second way of political change is development. It characterizes such modifications of the basic parameters of political phenomena that suggest a further positive nature of the evolution of the latter. For example, on the scale of society, development can mean such changes in which state policy is brought to a level that allows the authorities to adequately respond to the challenges of the time, effectively manage social relations, and ensure the satisfaction of the social demands of the population. This nature of political changes helps to increase the compliance of the political system with changes in other spheres of public life, improve its ability to use flexible strategies and technologies of power, taking into account the growing complexity of the interests of various social groups and citizens.

And finally, the third type of change is decline, which characterizes this method of transformation of existing basic forms and relations, which implies a negative perspective for the evolution of a political phenomenon. According to P. Struve, decline is a “regressive metamorphosis” of politics. In a state of decline, political changes are characterized by an increase in entropy and the predominance of centrifugal tendencies over integration ones. Therefore, decline essentially means the collapse of the existing political integrity (for example, the fall of a political regime, the dissolution of a party, the seizure of the state by external forces, etc.). On the scale of society, such changes may indicate that the decisions taken by the regime are less and less helping it to effectively manage and regulate social relations, as a result of which the regime is losing stability and legitimacy sufficient for its existence.

1.4. Features of political processes

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

Reflecting actually existing, and not just planned changes, political processes have a pronounced non-normative character, which is explained by the presence in the political space of various types of movement (wave, cyclical, linear, inversion, i.e. reversible, etc.), having their own forms and methods of transformation of political phenomena, the combination of which deprives the latter of strict certainty and stability.

From this point of view, the political process is a set of relatively independent, local transformations of the political activity of subjects (relations, institutions), which arise at the intersection of a wide variety of factors and the parameters of which cannot be accurately determined, much less predicted. At the same time, the political process is characterized by discrete changes or the possibility of modifying some parameters of a phenomenon and at the same time maintaining unchanged its other features and characteristics (for example, a change in the composition of the government can be combined with maintaining the previous political course). The uniqueness and discreteness of changes excludes the possibility of extrapolation (transferring the values ​​of modern facts to the future) of certain assessments of the political process, complicates political forecasting, and sets limits to the prediction of political prospects.

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

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

1.5. Typology of political processes

The manifestation of the indicated features of the political process in various temporary and other conditions predetermines the emergence of its various types. Thus, from a substantive point of view, domestic political and foreign political (international) processes are distinguished. They differ in their specific subject area, special ways of interaction between subjects, the functioning of institutions, trends and patterns of development.

From the point of view of the significance for society of certain forms of political regulation of social relations, political processes can be divided into basic and peripheral. The first of them characterize those various changes in various areas of political life that relate to the modification of its basic, systemic properties. These include, for example, political participation, which characterizes ways of including broad social strata in relations with the state, forms of transforming the interests and demands of the population into management decisions, typical methods of forming political elites, etc. In the same sense, we can talk about the process of public administration (decision-making, legislative process, etc.), which determines the main directions for the targeted use of the material power of the state. At the same time, peripheral political processes express changes in areas that are not so significant for society. For example, they reveal the dynamics of the formation of individual political associations (parties, pressure groups, etc.), the development of local self-government, and other connections and relationships in the political system that do not have a fundamental impact on the dominant forms and methods of exercising power.

Political processes can reflect changes that occur in explicit or hidden form. For example, an explicit political process is characterized by the fact that the interests of groups and citizens are systematically identified in their public claims to state power, which in turn makes the phase of preparation and adoption of management decisions accessible to public control. In contrast to the open, the hidden, shadow process is based on the activities of political institutions and centers of power that are not publicly formalized, as well as on the power claims of citizens that are not expressed in the form of an appeal to official government bodies.

Political processes are also divided into open and closed. The latter mean the type of change that can be fairly clearly assessed within the criteria of best/worst, desirable/undesirable, etc. Open processes demonstrate a type of change that does not allow one to assume what character, positive or negative for the subject, the existing transformations have or which of the possible strategies in the future is more preferable. For example, during the development of international crises or the reform of transitional social relations, it is often, in principle, impossible to understand whether the actions he performs benefit the subject, how to generally assess the current situation, which alternatives to prefer in this regard, etc. In other words, this type of process characterizes changes that occur in extremely unclear and uncertain situations, which imply increased hypotheticalness of both performed and planned actions.

It is also important to divide political processes into stable and transitional. Stable political processes express a clearly defined direction of change, the predominance of a certain type of power relations, forms of organization of power that presuppose the stable reproduction of political relations even with the resistance of certain forces and tendencies. Outwardly, they can be characterized by the absence of wars, mass protests and other conflict situations that threaten the overthrow or change of the ruling regime. In unstable processes, there is no clear predominance of certain basic properties of the organization of power, which exclude the possibility of qualitative identification of changes. In this sense, the exercise of power is carried out in conditions of both imbalance in the influence of the main (economic, social, value, legal) prerequisites, and imbalance in the political activity of the main subjects in the political space.

Science also presents attempts to typologize political processes on a civilizational basis. Thus, L. Pai singled out a “non-Western” type of political process, attributing to its features the tendency of political parties to pretend to express a worldview and represent a way of life; greater freedom for political leaders in determining the strategy and tactics of structures and institutions, the presence of sharp differences in the political orientations of generations; the intensity of political discussions that are poorly related to decision-making, etc.

L. Pai distinguished between political processes of Western and non-Western types. In the article “Non-Western Political Process,” he formulates 17 points on which political processes differ in Western and non-Western societies.

1. In non-Western societies there is no clear boundary between politics and the sphere of public and personal relations.

2. Political parties tend to claim to express a worldview and represent a way of life.

3. The political process is dominated by cliques.

4. The nature of political orientations suggests that the leadership of political groups has significant freedom in determining strategy and tactics.

5. Opposition parties and power-seeking elites often act as revolutionary movements.

6. The political process is characterized by a lack of integration among participants, which is a consequence of the lack of society of a unified communication system.

7. The political process is distinguished by the significant scale of recruitment of new elements to fulfill political roles.

8. The political process is characterized by sharp differences in the political orientations of generations.

9. Non-Western societies are characterized by little consensus regarding the legitimate goals and means of political action.

10. The intensity and breadth of political discussion have little to do with political decision-making.

11. A distinctive feature of the political process is a high degree of combination and interchangeability of roles.

12. In the political process, the influence of organized interest groups playing functionally specialized roles is weak.

13. The national leadership is forced to appeal to the people as a single whole, without distinguishing between social groups.

14. The unconstructive nature of the non-Western political process forces leaders to adhere to more definite views in foreign rather than domestic policy.

15. The emotional and symbolic aspects of politics overshadow the search for solutions to specific issues and general problems.

16. The role of charismatic leaders is great.

17. The political process proceeds mainly without the participation of “political brokers”.

2. Methodological approaches to the analysis of political processes

2.1. Institutional approach

The institutional approach to the analysis of political processes is one of the “oldest” methodological approaches. For quite a long time (until about the 30s of the 20th century), the institutional approach was one of the dominant methodological traditions in the USA and Great Britain. Its representatives focused their attention on studying a very important aspect of the political process—political institutions. At the same time, only institutions of a formal legal nature were analyzed. Institutionalists studied the formal legal aspects of public administration, in particular constitutional documents and the implementation of their provisions in practice.

Over time, institutionalism has undergone significant evolution, the general tendency of which has been to adopt some of the principles of other methodological approaches. Within the framework of modern institutionalism, three main approaches are sometimes distinguished, each of which is characterized to one degree or another by this trend: constitutional studies, public administration (in Russian political science it is most often translated as state and municipal administration) and the so-called new institutionalism.

Constitutional studies that survived in the 70s. significant rise, and are now represented mainly in the UK. This direction retained the combination of formal-legal and liberal-reformist approaches.

Constitutionalists pay their main attention to changes in British politics, comparison of the practice of constitutional agreements, etc. Despite the preservation of the traditional approach, constitutionalists are trying to avoid the former formalism in the study of institutions by analyzing “institutions in action,” that is, how the goals and intentions of people are realized in institutions. In addition, the research of modern constitutionalists, to a greater extent compared to their predecessors, is based on generalizing theories.

Representatives of public administration focus on studying the institutional conditions for the public service. In addition to studying the formal aspects, as well as the history, structure, functions and “membership” of government governance structures, these scholars also analyze issues of the effectiveness of the civil service. The combination of analysis of formal organization with behavioral aspects is also associated with the tasks of identifying the effectiveness of government structures. However, it is recognized that the study of behavioral aspects can only yield fruitful results when institutional conditions are taken into account.

New institutionalism, unlike other directions, emphasizes a more independent role of political institutions in the political process. This direction also differs significantly from traditional institutionalism in that neo-institutionalism has adopted a number of principles of other methodological approaches. It is distinguished from “classical” institutionalism, first of all, by a broader interpretation of the concept of “institution”, close attention to the theory of development and the use of quantitative methods of analysis.

Neo-institutionalists are not limited to a simple description of institutions, but try to identify “independent variables” that determine policy and administrative behavior. In particular, much attention is paid to the study of the informal structure of political institutions, and attempts are also made to supplement the analysis with a behavioral approach. For example, neo-institutionalists are concerned with the question: does the form of government (parliamentary or presidential) influence the behavior of political actors or does it represent only a formal difference. Some neo-institutionalists also focus on the performance of institutions.

The merit of neo-institutionalists is that thanks to him, it is possible to talk about institutions from broader comparative positions. It offers researchers the opportunity to explore whether the institutional dynamics of different regimes are more similar to each other than might appear from individual descriptions undertaken by scholars focused on the study of one country or even a region. The use of one of the options for institutional analysis does not guarantee the success of such a comparison, but it equips the scientist with the necessary set of tools to carry it out.

2.2. Behavioralism.

The so-called behavioral scientific and methodological direction was called upon to overcome the shortcomings of the normative and institutional approach. Its appearance is associated with a real revolution in the field of political research, which occurred in the 1930s. and changed their appearance. The main flowering of the behavioral trend occurred in the 1950-1960s. of the present century, when it occupied one of the leading positions in the social sciences.

The initiators and followers of the behavioral approach to the analysis of political processes were, first of all, representatives of the Chicago School of American political science. These are scientists such as B. Berelson, P. Lazersfeld, G. Lasswell, C. Merriam, L. White and others.

Representatives of the behavioral school paid their main attention not to political institutions (for example, the state), but to the mechanisms of exercising power. The subject of their analysis was political behavior at the individual and socially aggregated level (in groups, social institutions, etc.). Behavioralists came to the attention of numerous aspects of the political process related to political behavior, such as voting in elections, participation in other various forms of political activity, including non-conventional forms (demonstrations, strikes, etc. .), leadership, activities of interest groups and political parties and even subjects of international relations. By studying these various aspects, they tried to answer the question: why do people behave in certain ways in politics?

In addition to the characteristics of the subject of research, the distinctive features of behavioralism were its basic methodological principles: the study of people's behavior through observation and empirical verification of conclusions.

As D. Easton notes, “behavioralists were to a much greater extent than their predecessors, prone to theoretical research. The search for systematic explanations based on objective observation led to a change in the very concept of theory. In the past, theory traditionally had a philosophical character. Her main problem was achieving a “decent life.” Later, the theory acquired a predominantly historical flavor, and its purpose was to analyze the origin and development of political ideas of the past. Behavioral theory, on the other hand, was oriented toward empirical application and saw its task as helping us explain, understand, and even, as far as possible, predict the political behavior of people and the functioning of political institutions.”

The need to test the hypothesis by studying all cases or their representative number led to the use by behavioralists of quantitative methods of analysis, such as statistical methods, modeling, survey methods, observation methods, etc. Largely thanks to the behavioralists, these methods have become widely used within political science. Gradually, their application began to be considered by representatives of this scientific approach as one of the main problems of science. Special training courses, manuals, etc. appeared.

At the same time, behavioralism was not free from some shortcomings and controversial issues. Most often, this methodological direction was criticized for the following typical features that D. Easton identifies:

An attempt to distance oneself from political reality and abstract from the “special responsibility” for the practical application of knowledge that is imposed by professional science;

The concept of the scientific nature of the procedure and methods, which led the researcher away from studying the individual himself, the motives and mechanism of his choice (“internal” behavior) to the study of the conditions that influence actions (“external” behavior of people). This could lead to the fact that political science will turn into a “subjectless and non-human” discipline, within which the study of human intentions and goals occupies a rather modest place;

- “the assumption that behavioral political science alone is free from ideological premises”;

Inability to study the value aspects of political relations;

An indifferent attitude towards the emerging fragmentation of knowledge, despite the need to use it to solve a complex of social problems.

In addition, among the shortcomings of this approach, it is necessary to note the lack of a systematic view of political processes and ignorance of the historical and cultural context.

The noted shortcomings of behavioralism, its inability to give answers to many questions of political life, to predict some political events caused a crisis in this direction and gave rise, according to the apt remark of D. Easton, to the so-called “post-behavioral revolution”, which was marked by the emergence of some new methodological directions.

At the same time, some researchers continued to work in the behavioral tradition, trying to adapt the main provisions of this methodological approach to the dictates of the times. At present, “post-behavioral behaviorism” has the following characteristic features: recognition of the importance of not only those theories that have empirical origin, but also others, while maintaining the principle of verification; rejection of the principle of full verification, recognition of the importance of partial verification; lack of absolutization of technical techniques, allowing the use of qualitative methods of analysis and a historical approach; recognition of the inevitability and significance of the value approach (the possibility of assessing the phenomenon being studied).

2.3. Structural-functional analysis.

Another attempt to overcome the shortcomings of behaviorism was the development of the structural-functional approach.

Proponents of structural-functional analysis represent society as a system that includes stable elements, as well as ways of connections between these elements. These elements, as well as the methods of communication between them, form the structure of the system. Each of the elements performs a specific function, which is important for maintaining the integrity of the system.

According to the structural-functional approach, society can be represented as a set of large elements (subsystems), as well as a set of individual positions occupied by individuals and the roles corresponding to these positions. The state and behavior of large elements and individuals is explained, first of all, by the needs to perform functions and roles. Therefore, the main task of the study, according to representatives of this approach, is to identify the elements of the system, their functions and methods of communication between them.

The founder of structural-functional analysis is considered to be T. Parsons, who laid the foundation for a systemic view of the political process. T. Parsons identifies four large elements of society: economic, political, societal and cultural subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific function that is important to maintaining the integrity of the system. The economic subsystem performs the function of adaptation to the environment external to society; political performs the function of achieving common goals for society; societal - integration function; cultural - reproduction of cultural patterns. In turn, each of the subsystems can also be represented as a system with corresponding characteristics.

The structural-functional approach was the basis for the creation of the theory of political systems, which paid great attention to the factors that determine the stability of the political system.

The main merits of this methodological approach are as follows. The emergence of theories of the political system and the structural-functional approach in general made possible the emergence of a theory based on the identification of universal components of the political process. Structural functionalism contributed to the inclusion of macro-indicators and macro-structures in the analysis of the political process and the creation of a research tool suitable for scientific cross-national comparison. The emergence of this approach also favored a significant expansion of the field of comparative research, which included, in particular, a large group of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (third world countries). In addition, its appearance had a beneficial effect on the development of research into the informal mechanisms of the functioning of the state and other political institutions.

At the same time, the structural-functional approach was not free from some shortcomings: insufficient attention was paid to the micro-level of analysis of political processes; people's political behavior was viewed as a derivative of their functional status, the independence and activity of political actors, as well as the influence of social factors, were underestimated; insufficient attention was paid to the study of the causes and mechanisms of conflicts, which caused the inability to explain conflicting political processes (for example, wars and socio-political conflicts of the 60s)

At the same time, the presence of undoubted advantages of structural functionalism determined that this methodological approach, despite what it experienced in the 60-70s. crisis, and is still widely used in the analysis of the political process. As practice shows, the best results are obtained by using it in combination with elements of other methodological approaches.

2.4. Sociological approach.

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

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

As a rule, such analysis is carried out within the framework of a subdiscipline such as political sociology. This subdiscipline is younger than political science and sociology, at the junction of which it appeared: its official recognition occurred in the 50s. 20th century Often, prominent political scientists are also political sociologists. Among them we can name such names as S. Lipset, X . Linz, J. Sartori, M. Kaase, R. Aron and many others. The specificity of this subdiscipline lies in the fact that it is, in the apt expression of J. Sartori, an “interdisciplinary hybrid” that uses social and political independent variables to explain political phenomena.

2.5. Rational choice theory.

The theory of rational choice was designed to overcome the shortcomings of behavioralism, structural-functional analysis and institutionalism, creating a theory of political behavior in which a person would act as an independent, active political actor, a theory that would allow one to look at human behavior “from the inside” , taking into account the nature of his attitudes, the choice of optimal behavior, etc.

The theory of rational choice came to political science from economics. The “founding fathers” of the theory of rational choice are considered to be E. Downs (formulated the main provisions of the theory in his work “The Economic Theory of Democracy”), D. Black (introduced the concept of preferences into political science, described the mechanism of their translation into the results of activities ), G. Simon (substantiated the concept of bounded rationality and demonstrated the possibilities of using the para-digm of rational choice), as well as L. Chapley, M. Shubik, V. Riker, M. Olson, J. Buchanan, G. Tullock (developed "game theory")

Proponents of the theory of rational choice proceed from the following methodological premises:

First, methodological individualism, that is, the recognition that social and political structures, politics and society as a whole are secondary to the individual. It is the individual who produces institutions and relationships through his activities. Therefore, the interests of the individual are determined by himself, as well as the order of preferences.

Secondly, the individual’s egoism, that is, his desire to maximize his own benefit. Proponents of the theory of rational choice believe that a voter decides whether to come to the polls or not, depending on how he evaluates the benefits of his vote, and also votes based on rational considerations of benefit.

Third, the rationality of individuals, that is, their ability to arrange their preferences in accordance with their maximum benefit. As E. Downs wrote, “every time we talk about rational behavior, we mean rational behavior initially aimed at selfish goals.” In this case, the individual correlates the expected results and costs and, trying to maximize the result, tries to simultaneously minimize costs.

Fourth, exchange of activities. Individuals in society do not act alone; there is an interdependence of people's choices. The behavior of each individual is carried out in certain institutional conditions, that is, under the influence of the actions of institutions. These institutional conditions themselves are created by people, but the starting point is people’s consent to exchange activities. In the process of activity, individuals rather than adapt to institutions, but try to change them in accordance with their interests. Institutions, in turn, can change the order of preferences, but this only means that the changed order turned out to be beneficial for political actors under given conditions.

The disadvantages of this methodological approach are as follows: insufficient consideration of social and cultural-historical factors influencing individual behavior; the assumption by supporters of this theory of the rationality of individual behavior (often people act irrationally under the influence of short-term factors, under the influence of affect, guided, for example, by momentary impulses).

Despite the noted disadvantages, the theory of rational choice has a number of advantages, which determine its great popularity. The first undoubted advantage is that standard methods of scientific research are used here. The analyst formulates hypotheses or theorems based on a general theory. The analysis technique used by proponents of rational choice theory suggests the construction of theorems that include alternative hypotheses regarding the intentions of political actors. The researcher then subjects these hypotheses or theorems to empirical testing. If reality does not disprove a theorem, the theorem or hypothesis is considered relevant. If the test results are unsuccessful, the researcher draws appropriate conclusions and repeats the procedure again. The use of this technique allows the researcher to draw a conclusion about what actions of people, institutional structures and results of exchange activities will be most likely under certain conditions. Thus, the theory of rational choice solves the problem of verifying theoretical positions by testing scientists’ assumptions regarding the intentions of political subjects.

The theory of rational choice has a fairly wide range of application. It is used to analyze voter behavior, parliamentary activities and coalition formation, international relations, etc., and is widely used in modeling political processes.

2.6. Discourse approach

The foundations of the theory of political discourse were laid by representatives of the Cambridge and Oxford philosophical schools in the 50s. XX century, who analyzed the linguistic context of social thought. The first results of the study of political discourse were published in the serial publication “Philosophy, Politics and Society” by P. Laslett, which began in 1956. In the 70s. the term “discourses” is beginning to be widely used in the analysis of political processes. In the 80s a center of semiotic research arises, associated with the analysis of discourses. It centers around T. Van Dyck. Researchers at the center are beginning to pay attention not only to the content aspects, but also to the technique of analyzing political discourse. From this moment we can talk about the formation of an independent methodological approach to the analysis of political processes.

To study political discourse, representatives of this methodological direction widely use methods of semiotic analysis (the study of discourse-framework), as well as rhetoric and literary criticism (analysis of a specific discourse-work). The discourse frame, in the words of J. Pocock and K. Skinner, is a “generative system.” To denote this phenomenon, the terms “language” and “ideology” are often used; It is in this sense that they speak of the discourse of liberalism, conservatism, etc. A work of discourse has a certain plot, for example, the discourse of the 2000 presidential elections in the Russian Federation.

Analysis of sign systems involves identifying the levels of their complexity. The simplest level is a dictionary formed by a set of characters. This is the semantic level. Next, a more complex construction arises when the signs are combined using a code. This is a transition to the level of syntactics. Taking it up another level involves including the subjects of the message with their specific intentions and expectations. This is the level of pragmatism. It is this level that is especially important for discourse analysis.

One of the most developed areas of analysis within the framework of this approach is the contextual analysis of political discourse, or rather its individual components. As a result of such contextual analysis, the peculiarities of the meanings of individual components of political discourse are revealed, formed under the influence of factors external to it (socio-economic, cultural and political conditions). At the same time, it is recognized that discourse is not a simple reflection of processes occurring in other areas of the social world, for example in the economy. It unites semantic elements and practices from all spheres of public life. The concept of articulation is used to explain the process of its construction. When united, heterogeneous elements form a new structure, new meanings, a new series of meanings or discourse. For example, the Labor government that came to power in England in the 1950s built its program using various ideological components: the welfare state, the promise of universal employment, the Keynesian model of management, the nationalization of certain industries, support for entrepreneurship, cold war. This strategy was not just an expression of the interests of certain social strata of society, a response to changes in the economy; it was the result of the unification of various political, ideological and economic models, as a result of which a new discourse was constructed.

When analyzing a discourse-work, turning to the achievements of rhetoric and literary criticism presupposes, first of all, the use of methods related to plot analysis. Here there are well-established schemes and models that allow you to present individual political events and processes (rally, election process, etc.) as a discourse with its own plot, meanings and other parameters and predict its development. Much attention is paid to the study of alternative plots based on one initial model, as well as the study of plots with open ends. This technique allows one to obtain good results when analyzing the political process as a dynamic characteristic of politics.

The practical application of discourse theory can be demonstrated by the example of the analysis of Thatcherism (S. Hall). The Thatcherism project consisted of two, largely mutually exclusive, spheres of ideas and theories: elements of neoliberal ideology (the concepts of “personal interests”, “monetarism”, “competition” were articulated) and elements of conservative ideology (“nation”, “family” , “duty”, “authority”, “power”, “traditions”). It was based on a combination of free market policies and a strong state. Around the term “collectivism,” which did not fit into the framework of this project, Thatcheriem’s ideologists built a whole chain of associations, which led to the emergence of social rejection of this concept. Collectivism in the mass consciousness began to be associated with socialism, stagnation, ineffective management, and the power of trade unions rather than the state to the detriment of state interests. The result of this policy was the introduction of the idea that social institutions, built in accordance with the ideologeme “collectivism,” are responsible for the crisis state of the economy and prolonged stagnation in society. Thatcherism became associated with individual freedoms and personal entrepreneurship, the moral and political rejuvenation of British society, and the restoration of law and order.

One of the areas of analysis of political discourse is the postmodern approach. It is impossible not to mention postmodernism in discursive analysis due to the fact that this direction is becoming increasingly widespread in the social sciences, including political science, and is considered one of the “fashionable” areas of social and political analysis. Let us dwell briefly on its characteristics.

When analyzing political discourse, postmodernists proceed from the following premises. They deny the possibility of the existence of a single and shared image of reality that can be accurately studied and explained. The world around us is created by the beliefs and behavior of people. As ideas spread, people begin to believe in them and act on them. Being enshrined in certain rules, norms, institutions and mechanisms of social control, these ideas thereby create reality.

Most representatives of this movement believe that meanings must be sought not in the external world, but only in language, which is a mechanism for creating and transmitting individual ideas. Therefore, the study of language is declared the main task of science. The need to understand how the formation and construction of objects of reality occurs; The only way to achieve this goal is to interpret the language through the text. According to representatives of the postmodern movement, to understand the discourse it is enough to analyze only the text itself.

Thus, within the framework of postmodernism, there is no full-fledged analysis of political discourse, since only its subjective meanings obtained by researchers are subject to analysis. In this regard, it is significant that within the framework of postmodernism the concept of discourse is not even defined, although the term itself is used quite widely. In general, the postmodern approach to the analysis of political discourse cannot be considered particularly fruitful, although there is no doubt that within the framework of this direction a lot of factual material is analyzed, the appeal to which is of undoubted interest for further research.

Literature

Ilyin M.V. Rhythms and scales of change: on the concepts of “process”, “change” and “development” in political science // Polis. 1993. No. 2.

Political science course: Textbook. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M., 2002.

Fundamentals of Political Science. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Part 2. - M., 1995.

Political process: theoretical issues. - M., 1994.

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

Political science for lawyers: A course of lectures. / Edited by N.I. Matuzov and A.V. Malko. - M., 1999.

Political science. Lecture course. / Ed. M.N.Marchenko. - M., 2000.

Political science. Textbook for universities / Edited by M.A. Vasilik. - M., 1999.

Political science. Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993.

Soloviev A.I. Political science: Political theory, political technologies: Textbook for university students. - M., 2001.

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

Irkhin Yu.V., Zotov V.D., Zotova L.V.

“You cannot build a happy world on blood; with consent – ​​it’s possible.”

Postulate

§ 1. The essence of the political process

The term “process” (from the Latin processus - advancement) usually characterizes a certain movement, a course, an order of movement that has its own direction; sequential change of states, stages, evolution; a set of sequential actions to achieve a result.

The political process is a consistent, internally connected chain of political events and phenomena, as well as a set of sequential actions of various political subjects aimed at gaining, retaining, strengthening and using political power in society. The political process is the cumulative and consistent activity of social communities, socio-political organizations and groups, individuals pursuing certain political goals; in a narrow sense, it is the purposeful and related activities of social and institutional subjects of politics over a certain period of time to implement political decisions.

The political process as a whole: the course of development of political phenomena, the totality of actions of various political forces (subjects of politics), movements seeking the implementation of certain political goals; the form of functioning of a certain political system of society, evolving in space and time; one of the social processes, as opposed to legal, economic, etc.; designation of a specific process with the end result of a certain scale (revolution, reform of society, formation of a political party, movement, progress of a strike, election campaign, etc.).

The political process acts as a functional characteristic of political life as a whole, determining the performance by subjects of power of their specific roles and functions. It expresses a very specific Set of actions carried out by subjects, bearers and institutions of power to exercise their rights and prerogatives in the political sphere. In the political process, various political subjects and factors interact, resulting in changes and transformations in the political sphere of society.

Revealing the content of politics through the real forms of execution by subjects of their roles and functions, the political process demonstrates how the implementation of these roles reproduces or destroys various elements of the political system, shows its superficial or deep changes, the transition from one state to another. The political process reveals the nature of the movement and sociodynamics of the political system, the change in its states in time and space. It represents a set of actions of institutionalized and non-institutionalized political subjects to implement their main functions in the sphere of power, leading to change, development or collapse of a given political system of society.

Analyzing the content of the political process along the “vertical”, we can say that it includes two main forms of political expression of citizens. Firstly, these are various ways for ordinary participants in the political process to present their interests in various types of political activity: participation in elections, referendums, strikes, socio-political movements, etc. Secondly, the adoption and implementation of management decisions carried out by political leaders and elites.

Political processes unfold both on a global scale and within the political system of society, a separate region, or a local territory. They can be typologized by scale, nature of transformations, composition of participants, time duration, etc. Political processes act as global and national, national and regional (local), as interclass, intergroup, and within classes, social and other groups, outside or within political parties and movements. According to the nature, significance and forms of development (course), political processes are basic (on problems of development of the entire society) and peripheral (on issues of a region, a group of people), revolutionary and evolutionary, open and closed, stable and unstable, long-term or short-term (election period ).

The main problem of the political process is the problem of making and implementing political decisions that should, on the one hand, integrate the various interests of citizens, and on the other, take into account the interests of the development and progress of the entire society.

The fact is that the development of general collective goals is formed, as it were, at the intersection of the actions of, on the one hand, official bodies and institutions of power, and on the other, the public, interest groups, etc. The leading role in the actions under consideration is played by the highest institutions of state power. They are the main mechanism for making and implementing decisions. The degree of centralization of power and distribution of powers between groups involved in developing the goals of political development depends on their activities. Thanks to their stability and mobility in the political process, government institutions are able to support even those norms and goals that do not meet the needs of the development of society, diverge from the political traditions of the population and contradict the mentality and interests of citizens. The nature of the activities of institutions essentially determines the characteristics of the relationships between political subjects, as well as the rhythms, stages and pace of political changes in society.

The activities of institutions usually determine the cycles of the political process characteristic of specific societies. The process of developing and implementing nationwide, collective decisions is most often carried out by leading political institutions. For example, in democratic countries the political process is shaped from above. The peak of political activity of the population occurs during elections to the highest legislative and executive bodies of state power. At the same time, when legislators go on summer vacation (“parliamentary recess”), political life, as usual, calms down.

From the point of view of the systemic qualities of the organization of political power, there are two main types of political processes: democratic, which combines various forms of direct and representative democracy, and non-democratic, the internal content of which is determined by the presence of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes; the activities of relevant political parties and public organizations and leaders, the existence of an authoritarian political culture and the mentality of citizens.

Based on the nature of the transformation of power, political processes are typologized into revolutionary and evolutionary.

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

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

It is advisable to highlight the main stages of the formation and development of the political process:

Its beginning can be considered the stage of developing and presenting the political interests of groups and citizens to institutions that make political decisions.

The third stage of the political process is the implementation of political decisions, the embodiment of the strong-willed aspirations of government institutions and various political subjects.

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

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

An unstable political process usually arises in conditions of a crisis of power. This can be caused by complications in international relations, a decline in material production, and social conflicts. The inability of the regime to respond to the new needs of society or its main groups in an adequate manner causes instability in the political process.

Politics at its core is an activity, and therefore cannot but be a process. Analysis of the political process is one of the most important problems of political science. The concept of “process” (from the Latin processus - advancement, passage) can define: 1) the sequential change of phenomena, states, events, situations, stages, etc.; 2) a set of sequential actions aimed at achieving certain results and goals. In addition, this concept is familiar to students through the study of subjects such as criminal procedure, civil procedure and others, where the process is the procedure for carrying out the activities of investigative, administrative and judicial bodies, and the consideration of specific court cases.

The concept of “political process” is an important specific category of political science; most often it is interpreted as the combined activity of all subjects associated with the formation, changes, transformation and functioning of the political system. Some scientists in other countries associate it with politics as a whole (R. Dawes) or with the entire totality of the behavior of the actions of subjects of power, changes in their statuses and influence (C. Merriam). Proponents of the institutional approach connect the political process with the functioning and transformation of the institution of power (S. Huntington). T. Parsons saw the specificity of the political process in the consequences of the functioning of the political system. D. Easton understands it as a set of reactions of the political system to the environment. G. Dahrendorf focuses on the rivalry of groups for status and power resources, and J. Mannheim and R. Delo interpret the political process as a complex set of events that determines the nature of the activities of state institutions and their influence on society.

Within these different approaches, the political process reveals its more important sources, state and elements; it reflects the real interaction of policy subjects under the influence of various external and internal factors. The political process shows how individuals, groups, and institutions of power interact with each other and the state through specific roles and functions. And due to the fact that situations, incentives and motives of human behavior are constantly changing, the political process excludes any predetermination in the development of events and phenomena.

Thus, The political process is a functional characteristic of the political system, the content of which is determined by the performance by subjects of power of their specific roles and functions; it is also a form of functioning of the political system, which is constantly changing in space and time.

From this point of view, the political process can be represented as a certain sequence of events in political life. On the basis of this approach, D. Easton proposed a universal concept of the political process. According to the theory of systems and the systematic study of political life, the political process acts simultaneously as both the reproduction of an integral structure and the cyclical functioning of the political system in interaction with the social and post-social environment, including the impact on political life of economic, environmental, cultural and other factors.

Within the framework of the systems approach, the holistic political process goes through four stages (or four modes):

1) constitution - the formation of a political system;

2) the functioning of the existing political system;

3) development of the political system;

4) decomposition (disintegration) of the political system.

The division into these stages is arbitrary, but in a holistic political process they interact with each other, fulfill their role and are carried out by their specific methods of political action.

Recovery - the formation of a political system is the initial stage of the political process. It happens simultaneously and constantly. At the same time - at the moment of the emergence of a particular political system. This stage, as a rule, coincides with a turning point in the development of society, when existing political forces lose legitimacy and other forces take a dominant position. These new forces create, according to their needs, a new political system in which their will is carried out by qualitatively new authorities and other political institutions. At the same time, the old legal norms are being replaced with new ones, in which new ones are enshrined, institutions of power and other elements of the political system are created. The central point of this stage is a complete revision of the constitution, because the adoption of a new constitution is a legal and democratic means of legitimizing political power. However, the legitimation of power does not end with the adoption of a new constitution - it is a long, ongoing process. From this point of view, the constitution of a political system is not a simultaneous act: the system is constantly updated, there is a continuous process of legitimation of power, i.e. recognition of the new system, its approval and support from members of society.

Functioning stage political system coincides with a stable period of social development, when the dominant social strata occupy a more stable position than other social classes. At this stage of the political process, procedures are carried out to reproduce and support the activities of already constituted state bodies, political parties, and public organizations. In democratic societies, such procedures are elections and re-elections of representative bodies of power, their meetings, appointment, rotation of executive bodies, congresses, conferences of political parties, public organizations, etc. An important role in this process is played by the clarification, revision, expansion and updating of existing legislation, in a process in which the values ​​and norms of the political system are transferred (reproduced) according to tradition. At the stage of functioning of the political system, the participants in the political process themselves are reproduced, as representatives of certain political positions and interests, bearers of certain views and beliefs, stereotypes of political behavior.

Stage of development political system occurs during a certain regrouping and new alignment of political forces. At this stage of the political process, there is a partial change in the system of state bodies, reforming the activities of political parties and public organizations in accordance with changes in the social structure of society and changes in the balance of political forces in the state and in the international arena. Changes in the structures and mechanisms of power are taking the policies of the ruling elite to a new level. The stage of development of the political system is accompanied by a confrontation between various currents and tendencies, which should ultimately lead to adaptation of the system, compliance of the existing power structures with external social conditions. However, at a certain stage of development, new forces arise whose interests do not coincide with the goals of the existing political system.

New stage - stage of decline and collapse. The onset of the stage of decline coincides with the growth of new social forces that promote other types of organization of political life. At this stage, there is a change in the direction of development of the political process. This dynamic is negative in relation to existing institutions of power. Destructive tendencies here exceed constructive and educational ones. As a result, the decisions made by the ruling elite lose their leadership abilities, and the ruling elite itself and its institutions of power lose legitimacy. Thus, the stage of decline of the political system is associated with the final delegitimation of power. This completes the cycle of the political process.

However, the political process does not disappear, but continues. The beginning of the next cycle in the political process is associated with a change in the subject of political power, political institutions and the complete schedule of the previous political system. It should be noted that the cyclic path through these four stages is not determined once and for all. The beginning and duration of each stage in time are determined by many specific historical circumstances.

Thus, the political process should be considered as a set of actions of institutionalized and non-institutionalized subjects to exercise their power functions or political dysfunctions, which ultimately lead to the development or decline of the political system of society.

Reproduction of a political system is a complex, dialectically contradictory phenomenon. This includes the repeated restoration of all established elements and parameters of the system, and the moment of their change and update. This component of the political process consolidates and at the same time updates the historical type of the political system, its social nature and specific features. It should be understood that there is no single general form or general rhythm of reproduction of the political system that is universal for all formations. However, for example, in democratic societies, periodic, free, secret and direct elections (re-elections) on alternative principles have become an already established and definite means of reproducing the institutions of representative power. Continuity is the main feature of reproduction. At the same time, the content of the hereditary connection is not a mechanical copying of existing forms of political relations, but also the moment of the birth of new features and qualities, the development of the political system.

Political continuity is one of the necessary characteristics and components of the political process. The political system, of course, does not constitute itself from its own “material”; it is generated and constantly reproduced by state-organized society. Political continuity is a condition and principle of the reproduction process; it determines the nature of the process of restoring elements of the political system. Humanity and its political communities have long inherited the political activities of previous generations and at the same time transform political realities into new conditions; Consequently, in acts of reproduction of a political system there are always moments of the birth of some new features and properties. Political norms and values, customs and rituals, as a rule, move into the next cycle of the political process thanks to socio-political tradition. The content of political succession is not only the mechanical copying of political institutions and forms that once emerged; First of all, these are ordered successive connections in politics, which have their own content and characteristics.

So, firstly, political succession is directly related to the nature and mechanisms of power, therefore modern cratology requires considering it in the conditions of a specific political regime and taking into account the historical type of leader ruling the country (party, political group). Secondly, political succession is inevitably influenced by coordinating factors: objective - economic situation, social status, national issue, spiritual and cultural tradition; and subjective - the role of the political leader, the presence of a political elite, the position of civil society, etc. Thirdly, the heredity of power in modern political systems is directly recognized by the current legislation, which indicates its legal (or illegal) nature, and in combination with the public’s assessment - the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of political succession. Fourthly, one or another type of succession in politics is directly related to a certain type of political process (Western or “non-Western”; technocratic, ideocratic, charismatic, etc.).

Finally, based on these and other features and conditions, the following can be distinguished: types of political succession:

A) dynastic, when power is inherited by a member of a dynastic family, quite often due to customary norm, tradition or political ritual;

b) corporate, when power as a management resource passes from the hands of the ruling elite to the control elite (“exchange of elites”), or within one ruling elite is transferred to the most worthy persons;

c) democratic, which is carried out thanks to the generally recognized mechanisms of representative or plebiscitary democracy (elections, referendum, etc.).