1993. Элементы советского опыта. Разговоры с Михаилом Гефтером
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.
Written by an international team of experts working on Russian development scenarios since 2007, this cutting edge Pivot examines Russia's reaction to the Ukraine crisis, and argues that subsequent decisions made by the Russian government have dashed hopes for Russia's modernization. Russia scholars whose expertise ranges from politics and economics to demographics and foreign policy analyse the changes that have occurred in Russia and address key issues such as foreign policy, the nature of the political and administrative system, the economy, relations between the centre and the regions, the state of Russian society and ideological facets of Putin's regime. Harsh confrontation with the West, isolationism within the country, militarization and increased government control of the economy, public and private space, as well as a crackdown on any independently-minded civic forces are all factors that have been rapidly obliterating gains made in the quarter of a century after the collapse of the communist regime. Both relevant and timely, this Pivot makes a key contribution to the debate on Russia's development and traces emerging trends in various spheres of Russian life, from the economy and foreign policy, to society and ideology.
Article considered the Commissioner’s for Human Rights (Ombuds) activity in the democratic citizenship education sphere which is incorporated in its responsibilities and implementation of the social enlightening/prophylactic functions. Research questions are touching 1) the role of the institute in implementing state tasks in citizenship and political socialization; 2) analysis of the contemporary political situation factors influencing citizenship education and actors’ positioning in the field; 3) existing practices, methods of activity, adequate mechanisms and technologies for Ombud’s effectiveness. Empirical part developed on Ombuds’ materials from regions of Russia at the period between 2001 and 2011 years and case study of the Saint-Petersburg contemporary situation. Contextually found that there are problematic points of civic education as well as low usage of non- and informal social technologies of citizenship education, due to situation characterized by absence of interest within state institutions toward citizenship of the democratic sample, as well as contr-reformation stereotypic “patriotism” model promotion by state within the ideology of the «specific way of Russia».
"Informal institutionalization", i.e. displacement of formal institutions by informal rules, is one of wide-spread consequences of post-authoritarian (including post-communist) transformations. Russia has likewise failed to avoid it. What are then the reasons of the emergence, the mechanism of the formation, and the tendencies of the evolution, of informal institutions in Russian politics? Perfectly aware of the fact that a comprehensive answer to this question requires concerted efforts of different social disciplines, the author has made an attempt to outline some orientations for the analysis of the research problem it implies. The article consists of three parts and a Conclusion. The 1st part contains a critical review of the existing variants of explaining the domination of informal institutions in our country, and a substantiation of the necessity to complement the structural approach with the procedural one; the 2nd offers a procedural model of the informal institutionalization process; the 3d inquires into the logic of the rise and consolidation of informal institutions in the course of institutional construction (with the reform of the election process institutions as example); in the Conclusion potential effects of informal institutions are discussed, from the viewpoint of Russia's political regime's dynamics. According to the author's conclusion, the "informal institutionalization" is most likely to prove to be not just a transient "defect" of Russian political regime (in the sense of a deviation from a "correct" way of development), but, rather, its long-term and fundamental characteristic.
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.