Political stability: main components and their relationships. Factors influencing political stability

TEST

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

"Political Stability"

SAMARA 2006

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

Political stability in Russian literature is understood as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography.

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

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

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

4. Koroleva G.I. Russia: in search of a formula for national revival // Social and Political Journal. – 1994. – No. 1-2.

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

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

Of course, in countries with different political regimes, such as authoritarian and democratic, political stability will not be the same. At first glance, the most stable regime is an authoritarian regime. An eloquent example is Stalinism, which for 20 years (30s - early 50s) was considered in the West the toughest and at the same time the most stable political system. Here stability represents the absence of structural changes in the political system. In an authoritarian system, no political processes lead to radical changes, and if they do occur, they are subject to a premeditated strategy developed by the ruling party or elite. Really, mass repression The 1930s in the USSR, which shocked literally the whole world and were capable of sweeping away any democratic government, did not affect the Soviet system at all: all actions were pre-planned and well organized. The people rallied even stronger, as they wrote in the newspapers then, “around Communist Party and comrade I.V. Stalin."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The more seats opposition and anti-system forces have in parliament, the less likely the government will be to survive for long.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. FORMATION OF HUMAN PERSONALITY

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

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

Incomplete definition ↓

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Conditions and factors of political stability

political stability social system

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

The term “political stability” appeared in English and American political science, where it was used to analyze changes in the political system and search for optimal mechanisms for its functioning.

The state of political stability cannot be understood as something frozen, unchangeable, given once and for all. Stability is considered as the result of a constant process of renewal, which rests on a set of unstable equilibria between system-forming and system-changing processes within the system itself.

Political stability is presented as a qualitative state of social development, as a certain public order, in which a system of connections and relationships dominates, combating the commonality and continuity of goals, values and means of their implementation. At the same time, stability is the ability of subjects of socio-economic and political life to resist internal and external actions that disorganize the system and neutralize them. In this understanding, stability is perceived as the most important life-support mechanism for the development of a social system.

The main thing in political stability is to ensure stability, which manifests itself in legitimacy, certainty, efficiency of the activities of power structures, and in the constancy of norms of values political culture, familiarity of types of behavior, stability of political relations. It is known that the greatest successes were achieved by those societies that traditionally focused on the values of order. And on the contrary, the absolutization of the value of change in society led to the fact that the resolution of problems and conflicts was achieved at a high price. In order for development and orderliness to coexist, consistency, consistency, phasing of changes and, at the same time, a realistic program capable of connecting goals with means - resources and conditions are necessary.

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

The degree of political order is also influenced by the dynamics of social interests different levels communities and ways to ensure their interaction. It is important here not only to take into account the specificity, autonomy of interests, and multiple orientations of activity, but also to understand their compatibility. In society there must be zones of coordination of interests and positions, common rules of behavior that would be accepted by all participants in the political process as order. The formation of a political order occurs on the basis of the presence of common fundamental interests among different political forces and the need for cooperation in order to protect them.

As for the ways of regulating the dynamics of social interests of society, they can be confrontational (conflict) and consensual. The first type is based on the possibility of overcoming or even sometimes eliminating a certain group of interests. In this case, violence is considered the only force for political integration and the achievement of order. It considers how effective method solutions to emerging problems. Consensus type of regulation social relations comes from the recognition of different social interests and the need for their agreement on fundamental problems of development. The basis for that consensus are common principles and values shared by all participants in political action. The most dangerous thing for the political order is the loss of confidence in political and moral values and ideals on the part of the people.

Political stability and political order are achieved, as a rule, in two ways: either dictatorship or the widespread development of democracy. Stability achieved through violence, suppression, and repression is historically short-lived and illusory in nature, since it is achieved “from above” without the participation of the masses and the opposition. Stability based on democracy, a broad social base, and a developed civil society is another matter.

Stability consists of the population’s attitude towards the existing political power, the ability of the political regime to take into account the interests of various groups and coordinate them, the position and condition of the elite itself, the nature of relations within society itself.

There are absolute, static and dynamic political stability.

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

Static stability is characterized by the creation and preservation of immobility, constancy of socio-economic and political structures, connections, relationships. It rests on ideas about the inviolability of social foundations, the slow pace of development, the need to preserve those who are conservative in the dominant ideology, and the creation of adequate stereotypes of political consciousness and behavior. However, the viability of a political system with such a degree of stability is extremely limited. This condition may be the result of rigid resistance to both external and internal changes(closed type systems). Sometimes political systems of static stability try to improve their status by, say, carrying out “active” external (militarization, expansion, aggression, etc.) and domestic policy. But, as a rule, if these attempts at modernization do not coincide in time, do not take into account the objective progressive course of development, do not rely on broad social base interests, do not take into account geopolitical opportunities and the reaction of the world community, then the destruction of the political system and the transformation of a “closed” society into a more mobile social formation, capable of adapting to changing conditions, occurs.

The current state of the social environment is characterized by a new dynamic level of political stability. It was developed by “open” societies that have learned the mechanism of renewal and consider socio-economic and political changes within the existing socio-political environment as a stabilizing factor.

They are able to perceive and assimilate internal and external impulses that transform them, and organically incorporate into the democratic process mechanisms not only for preventing, but also for using conflicts to maintain the stability of the political system.

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

In a society with many problems economically, socially and political development democracy complicates solutions to problems of political stability. In conditions of economic inequality, the absence of civil society, acute conflicts, and the large number of marginalized groups, democracy can turn out to be a very risky form of development. The democratic type of development has different possibilities in liberal, pluralistic systems.

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

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

The balance of interests ensures the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political system, the necessary degree of approval and acceptance of democratic rules and norms of political behavior. But not only the willingness of citizens to defend various goals and most contribute to the process of adaptation of the political system to new situations and changes, but also the presence of social trust, tolerance, political awareness of cooperation, respect for the law and loyalty to political institutions.

The basis of political stability is a strict separation of powers, the presence of checks and balances in the functioning of various branches of government. Big flow“filters” - interest groups, pressure groups, parties, parliamentary commissions and committees can reduce quantitative and qualitative overload of the political system to a minimum. Reducing the social space for direct, immediate forms of pressure (participation in the activities of the executive branch, multi-stage, articulation and aggregation of interests can maintain political order and political stability.

The main subjects of internal political stability are the state and political cells of society. Moreover, depending on the activity they show, they can also act as objects of the political process. There are two types of internal political stability: autonomous and mobilization,

Mobilization stability arises in social structures where development is initiated “from above”, while society itself is, as it were, mobilized to realize a goal for a certain period. It can be formed and function as a consequence of crises, conflicts, general civil upsurge, or through open violence and coercion. In systems of this type, the dominant interest may be the state, the ruling party, an authoritarian charismatic leader, who take upon themselves the responsibility to express the interests of society and are capable of ensuring a breakthrough for society during this period of time. The main resources for the viability of mobilization political stability can be the physical and spiritual potential of the leader; the military status and combat capability of the regime; the state of affairs in the economy; the level of social tension in society that can separate the holder of power from the people; the presence of a political coalition on an anti-government basis; mood in the army and other social factors contributing to the growth of crisis phenomena) in the political system. The ruling elite of mobilization systems does not feel the need for change as long as their status allows them to maintain their social position. The system of mobilization stability has the legitimacy of a general period6 or open coercion. Historically, this type of political stability is short-lived.

Autonomous type of stability, i.e. independent of the desire and will of any specific social and political subjects, it arises in society when development begins “from below” by all structures of civil society. Nobody specifically stimulates this development; it exists in every subsystem of society. A unity of power and society emerges, which is necessary for the “conduct of deep socio-economic and political transformations and ensures the stabilization of the ruling regime. An autonomous, or open, system performs the functions assigned to it mainly through the legitimation of power, i.e. voluntary transfer of a number of management functions to the highest echelons of power. And this is possible on a large scale only in the conditions of the gradual strengthening of the position of the democratic regime. With this type of stability, social contrasts and contradictions (religious, territorial, ethnic, etc.) are reduced to a minimum, social conflicts here are legalized and resolved by civilization in other ways, within the framework of the existing system, the belief that the country is prosperous in comparison with others is cultivated, the dynamics are maintained growth of well-being.

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

The dissatisfaction of the masses with the policies of the ruling elite gives rise to a systemic crisis, destabilizing society as a whole and its subsystems.

It is the contradiction between the government and society that is the equal cause of the instability of society.

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

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

Thus, the problem of stability in dynamic systems can be considered as a problem of the optimal balance of continuity and modification, determined by internal and external incentives.

Among the methods used by the political elite to ensure political stability and political order, the most common are the following: socio-political maneuvering, the content of which is to weaken the opposition of the “disadvantaged” part of society (the range of methods of maneuvering is quite wide - from separate deals, temporary political blocs to the proclamation of populist slogans that can distract public attention); political manipulation - massive influence of the media in order to shape public opinion the desired focus; opposition forces were introduced into the political system and their gradual adaptation and integration; use of force and some other methods.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Political stability: main components and their relationships. Factors influencing political stability

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents