Гвинея-Бисау: племенная идентичность и политический процесс
The article deals with the role of tribal identity and its political use in African states, as in Guinea-Bissau. The author tells about the tribalism as an important and permanent factor of the political process, which affects state system, army, and society and contradicts with the ideas of civil equality and national unity.
Within the framework of the overwhelming majority of modern theories, the state is considered as a specialized and centralized institution for governing a society, to what its right to exercise coercive authority – legitimized violence is often added as the state’s critical characteristic feature. Contrariwise, my approach stems from the presumption that the state should be perceived not as a specific set of political institutions only but, first and foremost, as a type of society to which this set of institutions is adequate. Following this approach leads to the necessity of paying special attention to coming to the fore of the non-kin, territorial relations in state society – the point often evicted from many contemporary definitions of the state due to the wide-spread vision of it as merely a specific form of political organization. I also argue that political centralization cannot be regarded as a feature specific for the state, as it is applicable to many non-state forms of societies. In the meantime, the feature typical for the state only, is specialization resulting in administrators’ professionalization, that is, in the formation of bureaucracy, related directly to the non-kin social ties coming into prominence. As for the right to coerce, it should not be made the central point of the state concept because it is a dependent variable itself: the specificity of monopoly of the legitimate violence in state society is precisely that it is exercised through and by bureaucrats who operate within bureaucratic institutions.
The 2014 tumultuous events in Ukraine essentially reduced a number of possible trajectories of Russia’s development to one – the one that leads to its regime’s imminent degeneration and collapse. The only question is how fast the state will move along this trajectory. The country is now held hostage to the regime; the regime is hostage to Vladimir Putin, and Vladimir Putin himself is a hostage of his actions that drastically narrowed his range of options. The dramatic developments unfolding in Ukraine since the start of 2014 plunged Russia into a deep crisis, prompting the transformation of the regime according to a new scenario that can now be described as “Stalin-Medium”. Faced with the threat of local crises in different spheres, as well as stagnating and possibly deteriorating living standards, Russia started applying mobilizational model both to its economy and society as a whole. At the core of this model are self-isolation and “besieged fortress” rhetoric required for consolidating elites and citizens around the leader.
In 2013, Russia's economy entered a phase of stagnation, with a rate of gross domestic product (GDP) growth much lower than that of other emerging economies. This article argues that economic stagnation is linked to the dysfunctional system of informal institutions that permeates every level of political decision making in the country. By discussing four recent books on the topic, the article shows the negative effect of Russia's informal institutions on economic development, as well as how their emergence and persistence is linked to the political system built by Vladimir Putin. The article then outlines different scenarios of institutional reform to show how Russia stands very much at a crossroads between different paths of political, economic and institutional development.
The book is devoted to the causes and special aspects of modern authoritarian political regimes, which differ from their last century analogues with a pronounced imitative character. Hamstrung by democratic constitutions and international obligations, many post-socialist countries actually mimic democratic institutions and procedures, trying to hide real authoritarianism behind a beautiful democratic signboard. It turns out that the level of authoritarianism is directly proportional to the imitations level. The study also proves that the imitations level is also proportional to the levels of aggression, corruption and poverty. What are the reasons for the rise of imitative political regimes? How and by what means is their constitutional field transformed? On what grounds can they be identified in advance? The book attempts to answer these questions in the name of preventing the threat of return of authoritarianism in the post-socialist countries.
The article is devoted to the investigation of genesis of regular army as a political institution in conditions of political transit in Libya. The chronological scope of the study covers the historical period from 1951, when a sovereign Libyan state with monarchical form of government appeared, until 2011, when Libyan Jamahiriya ceased to exist. We scrutinize problems of collaboration of army with traditional and modern institutions of Libyan society and state; participation of army in development and implementation of domestic and foreign policy. We also examine how system of checks and balances of participation of army in the political process was established and how it was functioning during in the monarchical (1951-1969), Republican (1969-1976) and Jamahiriya (1976-2011) period. The events of 2011-2014 demonstrate the conservation of discovered trends and patterns of socio-political development of the institution of regular army in the new Libyan state.
The book contains articles by six Russian and seven international scholars who participated in a joint research project looking at, on the one hand, the development and contemporary state of democracy in the world, and on the other hand, at the political development of post-Communist Russia. The goal of the research was to analyze the Russian political practives in the light of today's political science knowledge about democracy, with its achivements and flaws, and to enrich the democratic theory with insights of the Russian experience.
The chapter aims at studying the process of the formation of the Russian Empire in the 18th century, the formation of its political institutions, center-periphery relations and social structure of the Russian society.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.