Вопросы идентификации и самоидентификации «гражданских объединений»
quarter of a century has passed since the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted in 1993, yet the issue of the results and the prospects for constitutional transformation has not disappeared from the political agenda. For some, the Constitution signifies an ultimate break up with the communist past and a legal foundation for the advancement of the Russian society toward democracy and the rule of law; for the others, it is exactly the Constitution that is the culprit for the authoritarian trend that has prevailed, and for the sustained stagnation in Russia’s economic, social and political development. The author of this chapter is in the middle of these extreme viewpoints. He believes that the Constitution has truly played a pivotal role in Russia’s move toward democracy by establishing the basic principles of civil society and the rule of law, and in this respect, it remains of everlasting and paramount importance. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it should be utterly inaccessible for changes, especially given the elapsed time and the negative experience of the authoritarian transformation of the political regime, the amendments that were introduced between2008 and 2014, and the current objectives of the democratic movement. The rationale for changes is to return to the constitutional principles, reaffirm their initial democratic meaning by rejecting the excessive concentration of the Presidential power, the results of counter-reforms and the adulteration through legislative and regulatory compliance practices. Some of the proposed remedies aim to establish a new form of government (Presidential - Parliamentary), which would necessitate Constitutional amendments — adjustments that would regulate the separation of powers and redistribution of authority. Others seek to transform the system without changing the text of the Constitution through legislative reforms, judicial interpretation and the policy of law. Yet, the third approach prioritizes institutional reforms. Not everything in social development depends on the provisions of the law, political improvisation and practice can prove just as critical. In their cumulative entirety such initiatives can help avoid the two extremes: that of constitutional stagnation gravitating toward the bureaucratic asphyxiation, and that of constitutional populism which has a tendency to destabilize the political system. In its practical activities to transform the political regime, the opposition ought to remember the maximum repeatedly confirmed by experience, — the further a party is from power, the more radical tend to be its constitutional proposals. Conversely, empowered groups tend to be more moderate in their initiatives.
The civil society sector—made up of millions of nonprofit organizations, associations, charitable institutions, and the volunteers and resources they mobilize—has long been the invisible subcontinent on the landscape of contemporary society. For the past twenty years, however, scholars under the umbrella of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project have worked with statisticians to assemble the first comprehensive, empirical picture of the size, structure, financing, and role of this increasingly important part of modern life.
What accounts for the enormous cross-national variations in the size and contours of the civil society sector around the world? Drawing on the project’s data, Lester M. Salamon, S. Wojciech Sokolowski, Megan A. Haddock, and their colleagues raise serious questions about the ability of the field’s currently dominant preference and sentiment theories to account for these variations in civil society development. Instead, using statistical and comparative historical materials, the authors posit a novel social origins theory that roots the variations in civil society strength and composition in the relative power of different social groupings and institutions during the transition to modernity.
Drawing on the work of Barrington Moore, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and others, Explaining Civil Society Development provides insight into the nonprofit sector’s ability to thrive and perform its distinctive roles. Combining solid data and analytical clarity, this pioneering volume offers a critically needed lens for viewing the evolution of civil society and the nonprofit sector throughout the world.
The article presents an analysis of the main trends and methods of civil society and cross-sector social partnership research in modern Russian science.
The article is devoted to the problem of mutual correlation between individual and political freedom in the context of ethical, legal and political legitimation of the state. The method - hermeneutical reconstruction and comparative analysis of the state philosophy by Kant, Hegel and Husserl. As a result of hermeneutic reconstruction of Kant’s state philosophy, there are revealed four constitutional factors: the principle of freedom, republicanism, the principle of membership and legality. Kant makes a distinction between noumenal (moral) and phenomenal (political-legal) freedom, emphasizing that in the sphere of politics and law, nominal freedom cannot become the basis of moral law, since it should not be limited from the outside (heteronomically), but only be relied upon by the individual “from within” (autonomously). For Kant, noumenal freedom is the only right initially given to each person on the basis of his belonging to the human race (natural low). The political community, represented by the state, is authorized only to protect this freedom from external coercion, but has no right to encroach on the restriction of internal (nominal) human freedom. Kant chooses the Republic as preferred form of government, since the law is the final authority. As a result of the comparative analysis of Kant’s and Hegel's state philosophy, the author comes to the conclusion that both thinkers are unanimous in understanding freedom as a basis for state legitimization. At the same time, Hegel “removes” Kant's established distinction between nominal and phenomenal freedom and takes as a basis the collective, universal freedom of the state, which embodies objectivity, truth and morality. The highest ideal and duty of the individual is to renounce autonomy in the name of the state, which is defined as a divine end in itself. Hegel picks up the ethical strategy of Kant's interpretation of the state and complementing it with two others: the understanding of the state as a result of natural teleology (the purpose of nature) and as a result of reasonable teleology (conscious and free choice of human). Hegel prefers monarchy as preferred form of government. Husserl, following Kant, develops and consistently radicalizes ethical and instrumentalist understanding of the state, emphasizing its transitory nature and focusing on the self-realization of a free, phenomenologically reflective individual. However, the freedom of the individual phenomenologist is limited by attachment to the phenomenological and contains rudiments of natural and intelligent teleology in the spirit of Hegel. Although phenomenology, in Husserl's understanding, is neither a “state philosophy” nor a purely personal practice, it acquires the specific nature of the intellectual aristocracy: the phenomenological movement and the community of phenomenologists represent the ideal completion of the political history of European humanity.
Mainstream research on the roles and contribution of civil society in the EU is characterised by a strong focus on European civil society in Brussels. Studies looking at activities and roles of national CSOs in the European Union (EU) depart from mainstream analytical and conceptual perspectives and rarely talk to each other. The contributions of this special issue attempt to bridge empirical and analytical gaps between existing studies on European civil society beyond Brussels. They show that the involvement of national CSOs in EU policymaking and democratisation is broader and more diverse than is usually thought. They approach the object of study from an original analytical perspective: a research agenda inspired by sociological approaches. This agenda hinges on an interactionist and pragmatic analytical framework, a pluralist approach to causality and takes into account the peculiarities and effects of context. Moving beyond Brussels and adopting diverse analytical perspectives, the contributions provide new evidence on the diversity of functions, roles and responses of national CSOs to the EU, and the roles and motivations of national CSOs implementing EU policies.
This chapter looks at the role of the globalised third sector in migration governance, and presents major theoretical and empirical contributions focusing on different aspects of the third sector’s, often ambiguous, role in migration politics and policy. It starts with a discussion on the third sector’s growing involvement in the migration field, then proceeds with an analysis of the third sector as new governors aspiring to shape migration regimes regionally and globally. The chapter uncovers complex patterns of interactions between the third sector and other actors in global migration governance, paying attention to aspects such as financial dependence of the third sector on donors, subordinated politics and competition for funding and prestige. The picture that emerges from this chapter indicates that the third sector is far from being and acting as a unified actor in migration governance.
"Facing Crises: Challenges and Opportunities Confronting the Third Sector and Civil Society" 9th International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR) Istanbul, Turkey July 7-10, 2010
Existing research on how the involvement of civil society actors improves EU democratic legitimacy produces controversial results. This is the outcome of a top-down analytical strategy. Scholars regularly gauge partnership practices against different concepts of legitimacy, but rarely ask how actors themselves perceive and construct partnership, let alone how these understandings relate to existing concepts of legitimacy. Utilising a bottom-up sociological perspective, this article examines how actors in four central and eastern EU member states understand the partnership principle for European Structural and Investment Funds and how these understandings relate to different conceptualisations of legitimacy. A reconstruction of actors' normative arguments shows that representatives of three groups (state officials, civil society organisations and social partners) prioritise different legitimacy effects which trigger contestation about the proper formats of partnership. While state officials focus on input legitimacy, civil society organisations insist on throughput and social partners emphasise output legitimacy. Variation across countries and within groups of actors further complicates this picture. This has implications for our understanding of Europeanization and the role of European civil society. © 2018 University Association for Contemporary European Studies.