В статье анализируется ряд политических аспектов современного исламизма. Авторы показывают, как ведет себя исламизм в оппозиции (где он чувствует себя увереннее) и что случается, когда исламисты приходят к власти легитимным путем. Исламизм – это не нечто поверхностное, а глубинная и всеобъемлющая субстанция исламских обществ, поэтому крайне важно различать радикальный и умеренный исламизм, опираться на последний для ослабления первого, поскольку именно умеренный исламизм может стать позитивной и перспективной частью политического спектра исламских стран. Уменьшить опасность радикального, террористического исламизма одной только силовой борьбой с ним невозможно. Можно надеяться, что он пойдет на убыль в случае, если удастся разделить его с умеренным исламизмом и сделать последний более респектабельным, открытым, вовлеченным в нормальную политическую жизнь.
This paper discusses the influence business has had on election campaigns in Russia. Based on expert interviews with political strategists, representatives of legislative and executive authorities, and entrepreneurs, the study identifies several types of political ‘investments’ made by businesses in modern Russia. They might be either passive (forced) or active (voluntary). Passive ‘political investments’ are treated by businesses as a form of informal taxation or a political tribute. In this case, the business can act as an official sponsor, transferring funds to the election fund account, and finance the shadow part of the election budget. Businesses might pay for bogus services from firms that play an active role as the shadow ‘wallet’ of election campaigns. Moreover, businesses might provide transportation, volunteers, or premises for election events; this can be forced upon them lest their relations with the government be negatively affected. Active ‘political investments’ might take the form of supporting a particular person without any formal or obvious obligations and associations with interested businesses. Businesspeople themselves might even stand as a candidate for elected posts. The first strategy, however, might be risky, as once elected, a candidate might terminate any informal agreements later on; hence, many businesspeople go into politics themselves to establish security, useful contacts, and options for their business development. The study outcomes suggest that it is almost impossible to do business in Russia without participating in these types of ‘investments.’ Moreover, the electoral process is ambivalent for businesses: it might be a heavy burden and a window of opportunity at the same time.
In the 2000s, political parties in Russia became major actors on electoral and parliamentary arenas. However the party competition virtually disappeared: all parties became effectively controlled by the Kremlin and turned out to be included into formal and informal hierarchy of Russia's government. While the major opposition parties were about to extinct, the party of power, United Russia, overwhelmingly dominated the landscape of party politics. The article is focused on analysis of the formation of the new party system in Russia in the 2000s, with special emphasis laid on the role of political elites and institutional engineering in the building of dominant party and centralized control.
The article contains analysis of crisis tendencies in the development of political and social processes in five countries of the Central Asian region. High quality Russian, Kazakh, Kyrghyz and Turkmen expert estimations of the risks have allowed to present descriptions of the basic threats facing Central Asian elites and to forecast possible political and social changes in the region.
The article studies the factors that shape the political attitudes of the elites. The author uses the data of semi-formalized interviews with municipal deputies and heads of administrations of cities and regions of the Perm Territory to identify the reasons that determine the different positions of politicians on the issue of canceling direct elections of mayors and municipal heads. The results of the analysis showed that the successful experience of the electoral struggle does not affect political attitudes and is not a sufficient basis for the formation of democratic values. Calculation of data by the Fisher exact test method showed a statistically significant relationship between political status (insider or outsider) and political attitudes of local elites. A substantive analysis of the collected interviews made it possible not only to systematize the main arguments for legitimizing authoritarian and democratic practices, but also to clarify the role of the legacy of the past in the successful installation of undemocratic orders. The negative experience of direct elections associated with the conflict of elites and general managerial inefficiency is a significant argument simplifying authoritarian legitimation.
In this article, we present the results of the development of the “Political Atlas of the Modern World” (“Atlas 1.0”) project. “Atlas-1.0” was implemented more than ten years ago by scholars of the MGIMO University with the support of the Institute of Public Projects and the “Expert” magazine. Development of five complex indices – of stateness, external and internal threats, the potential of international influence, the quality of life and the institutional foundations of democracy – was one of the major results of the “Atlas-1.0” project. The method of discriminant analysis was used to calculate the ratings of 191 UN member states (as well as Taiwan) as of 2005. The results obtained, reflecting various aspects of the existence of modern states, were compressed into four principal components. The four of them in the complex were interpreted as an analytical model of the modern world structure. In the project implemented ten years later at the Higher School of Economics with the support of a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (“Atlas 2.0”), the results obtained in the earlier atlas were tested for durability, corrections were made for the emergence of new UN member states, the components of the indices were refined, new statistical databases were used and advanced methods of multivariate statistical analysis were employed. The performed operations fit into the tradition of “revisited” which is part of the modern social sciences. A number of meaningful conclusions about the dynamics of the world structure have been made. The results obtained (configurations of the principal components) indicate the significant stability of the basic parameters of the world structure. At the same time, important elements of dynamics have also been revealed.
The paper discusses the semantic models that determine the practice of the Russian translation of the key terminology of Karl Marx, as well as the ensuing consequences of choosing a simplifying interpretational strategy for such a translation and determining its political pragmatics. This strategy is a request for a scientific concept that rejects the prospect of capitalist development, as well as the goals of propaganda and political education. The terms der Wert (value), das Wertding (valuable thing), die Wertgegenstaendlichkeit (value objectivity) were translated as «cost» in the canonical translation, enshrined in the publication of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism (1937). At the same time, two fundamentally different aspects of the product der Gebrauchswert (value as utility is a quality characteristic, not quantifiable) and der Tauschwert (exchange value, the ability to proportionally exchange) were translated, respectively, as use cost and exchange cost. This interpretation formed the basis of discursive practices in education, social sciences, journalism, and media.
The «value» translation versions were actually removed from scientific use. However, the «cost paradigm» significantly reduces the analysis of market relations and contexts. This is confirmed by the appeal to the original texts of the first and second editions of «Capital».
Discussions regarding the transfer of K.Marx’s terminology in «Capital» are not only instructive, but have important perspectives. Nowadays, the question has grown beyond the scope of a word dispute. The failure of value-to-value reduction is manifested in the problems of neoliberalistic marginalism, the coming to the fore social and cultural (neoinstitutionalism, «culture matters»), psychological and communicative (R.Taler) factors of economic relations. At the same time, the value nature of market relations is important both in concepts like «global value chains» (M. Porter, G. Jerreffy) and in the practices of transformative investment (Impact Investing), including on the blockchain platform. This forces to return to the conceptual content of the original terms and rethinking practices appropriate narration.