Saussurean notions of langue and parole provide social scientists with an analytical distinction of on line and off line aspects of social phenomena. It is agency that links both aspects together or rather converts one into another and back. It is human agency that translates or encodes institutional norms into processes of various temporal and spatial scales. Respectively it decodes processes or extracts institutional norms from them.
Analysis of present and historical usage of the words institutio, institutum, institution and the like shows that there is a range of homonymous terms that conceptualize different phenomena. They are off line norms, their on line applications and products of the applications, organizations that serve as agency of both encoding and decoding norms etc.
Interaction of on line, off line and agency institutions results in an ongoing saturation and purification of institutions. This in turn allows to distinguish thick and thin as well as formal and informal institutions. Simultaneously all those varieties of institutions are shaped into various temporal and spatial scales. This produces a motley of overlapping and mutually inclusive entities. All together they could be best presented by an image of flaky pastry of politics.
The article further presents a sequence of institutional scales, namely evolutionary orders, historical regimes and everyday practices packed into each other. Alternative ways of conceptualizing them as material objects, mechanisms, organisms, species, life forms and ecosystems are discusses in the article.
The article further develops critical investigation of heterogeneous institutional arrangements (flaky pastry) initiated in the first part of the article. Institutional ambiguity rests on two modes of existence – temporal on line and extemporal off line. Human agency provides an interface of both modes that can be associated with ongoing improvisations and fixed recipes. Procedures and criteria of saturation and purification are discussed. Each of the three basic cognitive schemata – a thing, an organism and an ecosystem (community of life forms) – helps to single out various aspects of life. Some cognitive schemata suit particular aspects of politics better than other analytic instruments. Combination of heuristic capabilities is the key issue. The article further presents sequencing and orientations of specific aspects of reforms. Particular attention is focused on the risks and prospects of alternative strategies of reforms, their recipes and improvisations. Transformation of institutions by saturating them with new practices is claimed to be naturally advantageous. It is saturation of traditional institutions be democratic practices that accounts for success of conclusive cases of democratization
Abstract. In the article the history and features of the Russian political science community’s formation are analyzed. Apart from the milestones, the authors consider the main versions of the community’s emergence, as well as the phenomenon of community itself. In the course of the research the authors used various methods and sources: content analysis of information resources and documents of the professional organizations of political scientists of the Russian Federation, surveys and interviews of experts-political scientists and public servants. All this allowed not only to characterize the political science community by its features description, but also to reveal the existing development problems, considering regional political science schools’ development and functioning dynamics, as well as the role of political science community as an expert community in the state policy-making. The wide range of experts having taken part in surveys helped to describe the situation from various sides and to show a picture both from political scientists’ position and from high-ranked decision-makers’ viewpoint. In the conclusion of the article authors form conceptual conclusions which can be used by the professional organizations of the Russian community of political scientists to increase efficiency of their activity, develop regional political schools in the Russian Federation, and also produce constructive dialogue between the authorities and expert communities to improve quality of the decisions made and provide academia’s involvement in the research field. Authors emphasize that the present article is not exhaustive, and express their hope that other researchers will join the discussion on the role of political scientists’ professional community, which will considerably increase the quality of the research.
The article undertakes a comparative analysis of party systems concentrating on the evolution of parties and party systems since World Was Two and particularly in the last decades of the 20th century following drastic redefininion of political regimes; it also analyzes modern trends in development of parties in countries that either underwent democratization or ended up with political regimes in which one or more parties operate. The comparison is based on a set of quantitative criteria evaluating the efficiency of party system. The article distinguishes three scenarios, and analyses for each scenario functions of political parties and trends of its evolution: the first scenario is tentative limitation of political pluralism; the second os “linear” development of multiparty systems; and the third is long-term period of limited competition in party space.
The analysis of transitional party system confirms applicability of our criteria for evaluation of the processes of evolution of political parties. In societies undergoing profound transformation of political systems, parties developed in a matter of decades into full-fledged political institutions and actors. Parties in non-post-Communist European countries are nowadays comparable by substantive characteristics and efficience with “old” democracies. In other parts of the world, such as Latin America, Asia, western part of post-communist space and selected ex-Soviet republics parties did not reach similar levels of stability and efficiency, but also became valid political actors and implement the same set of functions.
In a number of other post-Soviet states we find regimes with one predominant party, intertwined with the presidential power and bureacrtic pyramid. Such states form a continuum from fully authoritarian regimes to regimes with limited competition. Dominant parties is such regimes perform a set of fuction, which is more narrow in comparison with pluralistic and competitive regimes; it particularly concerns fuctions pertinent to interaction between parties and societies; yet, the role of such parties in political system of its respective countries is quite important.
Many of the “deficiencies” of the political parties de facto constitute “growing pains” and do not cancel successes attained by these polities in building viable parties and party systems, or, in a broader sense, in democratization. The analysis drives us to a conclusion that in countries reaching a certain threshold of socio-economic and political development, emergence of political parties and party systems constitutes a general trend: universal in cases of at least minimally successful democratization and frequent even in hybrid and authoritarian regimes.
Article is devotred to to shaping of the category "world order:" in Rusian andinternational political science, analysing stages and formats of world order
Artice analyses formation of the "world order:" as a category in political science and suggests periodization of world order development abd evolution
The article is devoted to the analysis of the current state and dynamics of the Russians' views on the relationship between state interests and human rights from mid-1990s through 2017. On the basis of a series of all-Russian representative surveys it is shown that in the 1990s, despite the state's refusal to fulfill the key functions, domination of the norm of the priority of the state interests over human rights (traditional for Russia) still remained due to the inertia of the norms and values system. However, in the late 1990s the process of changes in Russians' attitude to the right of the state to realize its interests to the disadvantage of human rights (and, consequently, its right to legitimate violence against citizens), as well as to the right of individual to have his own interests and to protect them in any way, was initiated. In the 2000s, this process accelerated, and now, for the first time in the newest history of the country, the norm of the priority of state interests over human rights has lost its dominance. Currently Russian society is split into two polar groups comprising about 20% of population each, while the rest of the population form "silent majority" which does not have a clear position on this issue. For Russia, this situation marks the beginning of a "silent revolution," the consequences of which can be enormous, since in neo-etacratic societies the norm of priority of the state interests over human rights lies in the foundation of their "institutional matrix". It is also demonstrated that interest in political rights and democratic freedoms is not characteristic for supporters of the human rights priority in Russia – for them it is primarily about socio-economic rights. Moreover, they, as well as Russians in general, are largely convinced that the western way of development is unsuitable for our country.
. This article applies a method of multidimensional scaling (visualization of multi-dimensional structures) to studying different dimensions of power competition between the great states. On the basis of analysis of the Neo-Realist, Neo-Liberal, and World-systems theory literature on global hegemony, 8 criteria of global leadership were defined: GDP per capita (PPP), military expenditure (% of GDP), amount of currency reserves (including gold), export of goods and services, direct foreign investments, population size in urban agglomerations with more than one million people (% oftotal population), articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and patent applications. A group of 19 states of the G-20 (excluding the EU) was selected for comparative analysis. Four models visualizing positions of 19 countries according to 8 dimensions were created: for 2004, 2009, 2013, and 2016. These results were compared to the results of calculation including 14 countries: Argentine, Brazil, China, Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and the USA. Using mathematical methods of analysis, as traditionally applied in IR literature, turns the making of such models into a very complicated task. Therefore, the mathematical method of the visualization of multi-dimensional structures developed by Russian scholars was applied to this task. The models demonstrate that China’s positions sharply increased in 2009 and since that time China has started to slowly replace USA as an absolute leader. However, if we analyze leadership within specific categories included into our model, the USA still hold leading (or close to leading) positions according to the majority of parameters, while China has a strictly defined profile of leadership connected to its accelerated economic and technical development. However, China is still far from leadership, from the point of view of the development of social structures and even regarding the military dimension.
The subjects of the discussions at the Round Table included particular features of today's crisis and of its influence on the quality of democracy; exposure of the main sociopolitical risks and revelation of the resources of a way out of the crisis; estimation of the prospects and determination of the outlines of a new model of development for the world and for Russia. The material is divided into two parts according to the subject-matter: the first part throws light upon the world context of the crisis and contains estimations of Russia's place; the second deals mainly with Russian problems.
Analysis of social protest in political field
The article raises methodological problems of the study of modern Russian politics. With a number of foreign and Russian authors' publications, critically analyzed, as example, the author demonstrates «conceptual stretches» inherent in some approaches, that spring from different causes dwelling both within and without science. To aggravate inadequate usage of existing theoretical concepts as well as confusion of levels of abstraction, there are, else, normative bias in political-scientific analysis and logical contradictions in the construction of theories. The article contains certain recommendations aimed at a theoretically consistent, empirically demonstrative and value-neutral position to be formed, in the study of Russian politics in a theoretical and comparative perspective.