Authoritative and totalitarian political systems

The state is I.

Louis XIV

I. Now in the majority of the countries of the world there are authoritative political usages. In the general view the shape of system of the rigid political board constantly using compulsory and power methods for regulation of the basic social processes was fixed to authoritarianism. At such style властвования the opposition is excluded not only from decision-making sphere, but also from political life as a whole. An authoritative mode - it is state-political system, in which the political power is carried out by the concrete person (a class, party, elite group) at the minimum participation of the people. The main characteristic of the given mode authoritarianism as makes a method властвования and managements, and also as a version of public relations. Being guided at state policy carrying out only by narrow interests of a ruling layer, authoritarianism uses in relations with the population mainly methods патронирования and control.

The main way of preservation of an authoritative way of board are backroom deals, payoff, private arrangement and other technologies of shadow board. Other source of board of this kind considers use by the authorities of certain features of mass consciousness, mentality of citizens, religious and cultural traditions which in aggregate testify to enough steady civil passivity of the population. Now the most essential preconditions for occurrence of authoritative modes keep transitive societies. As Adam Pshevorsky (marks a sort. 1940), authoritative temptations in societies of this kind are almost deep-rooted. Comprehension of daily difficulties causes a temptation in many political forces “to make all rectilinearly, one throw, to stop squabble, to replace a policy with administration, anarchy - discipline, to do all rationally”.

Among set of authoritative usages it is possible to allocate their following basic types: party, corporate, military, national and personal authority modes.Feature of party modesconsists in realisation of the exclusive power by any party or a political group not necessarily formally representing institute of party. Military-bureaucratic modes, as a rule, result from revolutions, plots, putsches in the form of military dictatorship, but in the further political development the increasing role belongs any to civil professionals. Forms of military board - from dictatorship of one general to junta. Such political usages differ suppression of a considerable part political and a civil freedom, a wide circulation of corruption and internal instability. Models of national authoritarianism result from domination in elite grouping national or an ethnic group. As example Post-Soviet republics can serve in the Central Asia.One-party mobilisation authoritative modesof this type especially often resulted from independence finding by the colonial people. In the politological literature they have given life to such concept, as postcolonial authoritarianism. Corporate authoritarianism personifies the power of the bureaucratic, oligarchical or shadow groupings combining the power and the property and on this basis supervising decision-making process. The state becomes the tool of forces which use possibilities of its bodies for protection of narrowly group interests. As an example of a corporate mode board Antoniu ди can serve Salazara in Portugal since 1932 till 1968 personal authority Modes personalise all political relations in the opinion of public opinion. Rigid character of board in a combination to certain traditions of noncritical perception of the power quite often gives economic benefit, leads to activization of the population and growth of legitimacy of a mode. However such system of the power quite often provokes practical terror from opposition. In classification of political modes of Juan Lintsa (a sort. 1926) султанизм it is considered as the limiting form автократии. In султанистском a mode the personal intertwines with public, the strong tendency to the family dynastic power and continuity is looked through, there are no distinctions between public service and service to the governor, successes of officials depend on personal relations with the despot, there is no a little rational ideology. The sultan is absolutely free in the actions.

Characteristic features of authoritarianism as systems властвования are:

- Limitlessness of the power, its independence of a society; concentration of the power in hands of the political leader (the monarch, the tyrant) or certain persons (military junta, oligarchical group etc.); the power can correct by means of laws, but it accepts them under own discretion;

- Presence at the state of only key levers of influence on public life; refusal of the power of total control over a society, non-interference or the limited intervention to not political spheres and, first of all, in economy; the power prosecutes subjects mainly maintenance of own safety, a public order, defence, foreign policy though it can influence and strategy of economic development, spend active enough social policy, without destroying thus mechanisms of market self-regulation;

- Restriction and a strict regulation of the political rights and political behaviour both separate citizens, and the political organisations; a non-admission of real political opposition and a competition; at автократии existence of the limited number of parties, trade unions and other organisations, but only under condition of their submission to control to the authorities is possible;

- The support on the force allowing in case of need at own discretion to use of it and to force citizens to obedience; absence of the huge retaliatory device, aspiration not to resort to mass reprisals;

- Formation of political elite by co-optation, appointments from above, instead of competitive electoral struggle;

- The permission to citizens of all of that is not forbidden by the state;

- Presence of elements of democracy in some authoritative modes (elections, parliamentary struggle, etc.)

II. Totalitarian political system. Theterm "totalitarianism" (from an armour. totalis - whole, full or totalitas - completeness, integrity) the J for the first time has been formulated. Джентиле in beginning ХХ of century in Italy. In 20th years this term is entered by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) into political use which in the theory “органистического the states” gave to totalitarianism positive sense as to an embodiment of power of the official power. The idea of the omnipotent and all-consuming power in a more comprehensive sense taken as a principle to the given theory was developed by theorists of fascism, met in political compositions of "the left communists” (the Lion Davydovich Trotsky). However serious attempts of conceptual interpretation of this political phenomenon have been undertaken already after the Second World War and were based on the analysis of a Hitlerite mode in Germany and Stalin - in the USSR: Charles Popper (1902-1994) considered a totalitarianism phenomenon in the work “the Open society and its enemies”; In 1951 there was a book of Hanny Arendt (1906-1975) “a totalitarianism Origin”; after four years Charles Fridrih(1901-1984) andZbignev Bzhezinsky (a sort. 1928) Totalitarian dictatorship and democracy ”have published work“.

In a political science there were some approaches to totalitarianism illumination. A number of scientists have refused to carry totalitarianism to scientific categories, seeing in it only a metaphor for the dictatorship characteristic. Many scientists, believing that концепт totalitarianism nevertheless theoretically describes real political usages, nevertheless, saw in it only a version of authoritative political system or one of the general patrimonial properties of the government which constantly tries to expand the powers at the expense of a society, imposing it "services" in a management and management. As believes M.Simon, use of the term "totalitarianism" in general needs in the event that be not to adjusted only to it all versions of political dictatorships.

In view of the limited applicability of theories of totalitarianism it is represented to more fruitful to treat it as mainly standard concept finding большее or a smaller practical embodiment in ideology, political movement and real political practice. The general distinctive signs of totalitarianism is the aspiration to general organisation of a society and complete control of the person the power, to radical transformation of all public system according to revolutionary in character the social utopia which is not leaving places for individual freedom and social contradictions.Totalitarianism is the political mode aspiring to an establishment of absolute (total) control over various aspects of life of each person and all society as a whole. Certain signs are inherent in this mode:

- The state aspires to global domination over all spheres of public life, to the comprehensive power;

- The society is almost completely aloof from the political power;

- In political consciousness of people representation about "unity", power and people "merge" is formed;

- Exclusive state control over economy, mass media, culture, religion, private life;

- An absolute regulation of public relations on the basis of a principle “that is directly authorised the law” is permitted only;

- The government is formed in the bureaucratic way with use closed from control of a society of channels;

- The violence, compulsion, terror becomes a dominating management method;

- Domination of one party, actual merging of its professional device with the state, an interdiction of in opposition adjusted forces;

- The rights and freedom of the person and the citizen have declarative, formal character, there are no weighty guarantees of their realisation;

- As an economic basis the large property - state, monopolistically, communal acts;

- Presence of one official ideology, pluralism it is actually eliminated;

- Government centralisation in hands of the dictator and its environment;

- The government is carried out at the discretion of the leader, subordinated to its arbitrariness.

III. Depending on the dominating ideology influencing the maintenance of activity of a totalitarian mode, them usually subdivide into fascism, national socialism and communism,and alsotheocratic totalitarianism. Historically the first form of totalitarianism considers communism of the Soviet type, the beginning to which the military-communistic system in general generated in 1918 as she assumed full elimination of a private property and, hence, any autonomy of the person, the absolute power over her the states has put. And still the characteristic of a socialism of the Soviet type as totalitarianism одностороння also does not open all maintenance and the policy purposes in this type of a society. Despite mainly totalitarian forms of the political organisation, the humane purposes were inherent in socialist system also: general formation, availability to each person of achievements of a science and art, social security of people etc. Since 60th years ХХ the centuries, many western political scientists have ceased to qualify a political system of the USSR as totalitarian, preferring to describe as a certain version of authoritarianism.

The second version of totalitarian political systems - fascism. For the first time the fascist mode has been established in 1922 in Italy. The Italian fascism gravitated not so much to radical building of a new society, how many to revival of the Italian nation and greatness of Roman empire, an establishment of a firm state order. The fascism applied for restoration or clarification of "national soul”, maintenance of collective identity on cultural or ethnic soil, liquidation of mass criminality. Benito Mussolini confidently considered totalitarianism as a XX-th century innovation, confirming: party which operates totalitarian - the new fact in the history for which analogies and comparisons are inappropriate.

The third version of totalitarianism - national socialism. As the real political and social order it has arisen in Germany in 1933 National socialism was related and close to fascism. Sharply "Leader" (1044) Konrad Hejden has expressed a totalitarianism phenomenon in it natsional-sotsialistskom (nazi) variant in Germany (1901-1966) in the book. Its judgement is possible, possibly to carry to all первоначалам totalitarian usages: “From fragments of the died off classes there is a new class of intellectuals, and at the head of it the most ruthless march, those who has nothing to lose, - the armed bohemia, to whom war - mother native, and civil war - fatherland”.

As the fourth example of theocratic totalitarianism can serve муллократия in Iran after Khomeini's revolution, a mode of Talibs in Afghanistan, etc.

IV. Now totalitarian modes do not play the world scene some an essential role, the area of their distribution was essentially reduced. H.Lints in the typology of political modes has fixed as special posttotalitarian system властвования. It carries the Soviet mode To posttotalitarian usages in the USSR after Joseph Vissarionovicha Stalin's death (1879-1953). The main characteristics of posttotalitarianism are well described by Milovanom Dzhilasom: easing of police services or their neutralisation by means of army; the permission of crisis of management by creation of the centre of the power already in the form of collective, instead of a personal management; revision of a role of party in a society; gradual process of liberalisation of political system in order to avoid opened or latent by revolution opposition.

Political scientists allocate three conditions of a posttotalitarian mode:

- Early posttotalitarianism is closest to totalitarian board, however differs from it occurrence of terminators on the power of the leader (the USSR at Nikita Sergeeviche Khruschev (1953-1964);

- Late posttotalitarianism more and more tolerantly concerns mode criticism (Czechoslovakia 1977-1989);

- At the mature posttotalitarian power all characteristics of former political system will considerably be transformed, invariable there is only supervising role of party (Hungary 1982-1988).

Characteristic signs of posttotalitarian modes (absence of political pluralism, occurrence of elements of social and economic pluralism, preservation of official ideology at comparative reduction of degree идеологизированности the societies, some easing of mobilisation of citizens through existing institutes, but at maintenance of necessary level of conformism in relation to a mode, бюрократизация a nomenclature management) act as the precondition of their liberalisation and the subsequent democratisation.

The history like would take out the verdict to totalitarianism. But whether the world from relapses of the similar organisation of the power is insured? As social practice shows, the system of the total power is not capable to adapt flexibly to intensive dynamics of modern societies with difficult scale of various interests. It - internally closed system constructed on a principle гомеостазиса (preservations of internal balance, without looking at influences from the outside), moving under self-isolation laws. The totalitarian type of political systems could appear only on narrow time space which was given by history to some countries. It does not mean, nevertheless, that it does not have chances of revival at this or that local level and in ХХI century. Definitive destruction of a phantom of totalitarianism is integrally connected not only with presence of democratic institutes and involving of the countries and the people in new information relations. Enormous value growth of their social responsibility and the initiative have also understanding people of values of democracy, comprehension by them as citizens of the honour and advantage.

Мунтян Перевод

АВТОРИТАРНАЯ И ТОТАЛИТАРНАЯ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ СИСТЕМЫ

Государство – это я.

Людовик XIV

I. В настоящее время в большинстве стран мира существуют авторитарные политические порядки. В самом общем виде за авторитаризмом закрепился облик системы жесткого политического правления, постоянно использующей принудительные и силовые методы для регулирования основных социальных процессов. При таком стиле властвования оппозиция исключается не только из сферы принятия решений, но и из политической жизни в целом. Авторитарный режим – государственно-политическое устройство, в котором политическая власть осуществляется конкретным лицом (классом, партией, элитной группой) при минимальном участии народа. Главную характеристику данного режима составляет авторитаризм как метод властвования и управления, а также как разновидность общественных отношений. Ориентируясь при проведении государственной политики только на узкие интересы правящего слоя, авторитаризм использует в отношениях с населением преимущественно методы патронирования и контроля.

Главным способом сохранения авторитарного способа правления являются закулисные сделки, подкуп, келейный сговор и другие технологии теневого правления. Другим источником такого типа правления считается использование властями определенных особенностей массового сознания, менталитета граждан, религиозных и культурных традиций, которые в совокупности свидетельствуют о достаточно устойчивой гражданской пассивности населения. В настоящее время наиболее существенные предпосылки для возникновения авторитарных режимов сохраняют переходные общества. Как отмечает Адам Пшеворский (род. 1940), авторитарные соблазны в обществах подобного типа практически неискоренимы. Осознание повседневных трудностей вызывает искушение у многих политических сил “сделать все прямолинейно, одним броском, прекратить перебранку, заменить политику администрированием, анархию – дисциплиной, делать все рационально”.

Среди множества авторитарных порядков можно выделить следующие их основные типы: партийные, корпоративные, военные, национальные и режимы личной власти. Особенность партийных режимов заключается в осуществлении монопольной власти какой-либо партией или политической группировкой, не обязательно формально представляющей институт партии. Военно-бюрократические режимы, как правило, возникают в результате переворотов, заговоров, путчей в виде военной диктатуры, но в дальнейшем политическом развитии все большая роль принадлежит разного рода гражданским профессионалам. Формы военного правления – от диктатуры одного генерала до хунты. Такие политические порядки отличаются подавлением значительной части политических и гражданских свобод, широким распространением коррупции и внутренней нестабильности. Модели национального авторитаризма возникают в результате доминирования в элитарной группировке национальной или этнической группы. Примером могут служить постсоветские республики в Центральной Азии. Однопартийные мобилизационные авторитарные режимы этого типа особенно часто возникали в результате обретения независимости колониальными народами. В политологической литературе они дали жизнь такому понятию, как постколониальный авторитаризм. Корпоративный авторитаризм олицетворяет собой власть бюрократических, олигархических или теневых группировок, совмещающих власть и собственность и на этой основе контролирующих процесс принятия решений. Государство становится инструментом сил, которые используют возможности его органов для защиты своих узко групповых интересов. Примером корпоративного режима может служить правление Антониу ди Салазара в Португалии с 1932 г. до 1968 г. Режимы личной власти персонализируют все политические отношения в глазах общественного мнения. Жесткий характер правления в сочетании с определенными традициями некритического восприятия власти нередко дает экономический эффект, приводит к активизации населения и росту легитимности режима. Однако такая система власти нередко провоцирует практический террор со стороны оппозиции. В классификации политических режимов Хуана Линца (род. 1926) султанизм рассматривается как предельная форма автократии. В султанистском режиме личное переплетается с общественным, просматривается сильная тенденция к семейной династической власти и преемственности, нет различий между государственной службой и служением правителю, успехи должностных лиц зависят от личных отношений с деспотом, отсутствует сколько-нибудь рациональная идеология. Султан абсолютно свободен в своих действиях.

Характерными чертами авторитаризма как системы властвования являются:

- неограниченность власти, ее независимость от общества; концентрация власти в руках политического лидера (монарх, тиран) или определенных лиц (военная хунта, олигархическая группа и т.д.); власть может править с помощью законов, но их она принимает по собственному усмотрению;

- наличие у государства лишь ключевых рычагов воздействия на общественную жизнь; отказ власти от тотального контроля над обществом, невмешательство или ограниченное вмешательство в неполитические сферы и, прежде всего, в экономику; власть занимается главным образом вопросами обеспечения собственной безопасности, общественного порядка, обороны, внешней политикой, хотя она может влиять и на стратегию экономического развития, проводить достаточно активную социальную политику, не разрушая при этом механизмы рыночного саморегулирования;

- ограничение и строгая регламентация политических прав и политического поведения как отдельных граждан, так и общественно-политических организаций; недопущение реальной политической оппозиции и конкуренции; при автократии возможно существование ограниченного числа партий, профсоюзов и других организаций, но лишь при условии их подконтрольности властям;

- опора на силу, позволяющую в случае необходимости по своему усмотрению использовать ее и принудить граждан к повиновению; отсутствие огромного карательного аппарата, стремление не прибегать к массовым репрессиям;

- формирование политической элиты путем кооптации, назначения сверху, а не конкурентной электоральной борьбы;

- разрешение гражданам всего того, что не запрещено государством;

- наличие элементов демократии в некоторых авторитарных режимах (выборы, парламентская борьба и т.п.)

II. Тоталитарная политическая система. Термин “тоталитаризм” (от лат. totalis – целый, полный или totalitas – полнота, цельность) был впервые сформулирован Дж. Джентиле в начале ХХ столетия в Италии. В 20-е годы этот термин вводится Бенито Муссолини (1883-1945) в политический обиход, который в своей теории “органистического государства” придавал тоталитаризму положительный смысл как олицетворению мощи официальной власти. В более широком смысле положенная в основу данной теории идея всесильной и всепоглощающей власти разрабатывалась теоретиками фашизма, встречалась в политических сочинениях “левых коммунистов” (Лев Давыдович Троцкий). Однако серьезные попытки концептуальной интерпретации этого политического явления были предприняты уже после второй мировой войны и основывались на анализе гитлеровского режима в Германии и сталинского – в СССР: Карл Поппер (1902-1994) рассматривал феномен тоталитаризма в своем труде “Открытое общество и его враги”; в 1951 г. вышла книга Ханны Арендт (1906-1975) “Происхождение тоталитаризма”; спустя четыре года Карл Фридрих (1901-1984) и Збигнев Бжезинский (род. 1928) опубликовали работу “Тоталитарная диктатура и демократия”.

В политической науке сложились несколько подходов к освещению тоталитаризма. Ряд ученых отказались относить тоталитаризм к научным категориям, усматривая в нем всего лишь метафору для характеристики диктатуры. Многие ученые, полагая, что концепт тоталитаризма все же теоретически описывает реальные политические порядки, тем не менее, видели в нем лишь разновидность авторитарной политической системы или одно из общих родовых свойств государственной власти, которая постоянно пытается расширить свои полномочия за счет общества, навязывая ему “услуги” по руководству и управлению. Как полагает М. Симон, использование самого термина “тоталитаризм” вообще имеет смысл только в том случае, если не подгонять под него все разновидности политических диктатур.

Ввиду ограниченной применимости теорий тоталитаризма представляется более плодотворным трактовать его как преимущественно нормативное понятие, находящее большее или меньшее практическое воплощение в идеологии, политическом движении и реальной политической практике. Общими отличительными признаками тоталитаризма является стремление к всеобщей организованности общества и полному контролю личности властью, к радикальному преобразованию всей общественной системы в соответствии с революционной по своему характеру социальной утопией, не оставляющей места для индивидуальной свободы и социальных противоречий. Тоталитаризм – это политический режим, стремящийся к установлению абсолютного (тотального) контроля над различными сторонами жизни каждого человека и всего общества в целом. Этому режиму присущи определенные признаки:

- государство стремится к глобальному господству над всеми сферами общественной жизни, к всеохватывающей власти;

- общество практически полностью отчуждено от политической власти;

- в политическом сознании людей формируется представление о “единстве”, “слиянии” власти и народа;

- монопольный государственный контроль над экономикой, средствами массовой информации, культурой, религией, личной жизни;

- абсолютная регламентация общественных отношений на основе принципа “дозволено только то, что прямо разрешено законом”;

- государственная власть формируется бюрократическим способом с использованием закрытых от контроля общества каналов;

- доминирующим методом управления становится насилие, принуждение, террор;

- господство одной партии, фактическое сращивание ее профессионального аппарата с государством, запрет оппозиционно настроенных сил;

- права и свободы человека и гражданина носят декларативный, формальный характер, отсутствуют веские гарантии их реализации;

- экономической основой выступает крупная собственность – государственная, монополистическая, общинная;

- наличие одной официальной идеологии, плюрализм фактически устранен;

- централизация государственной власти в руках диктатора и его окружения;

- государственная власть осуществляется по усмотрению вождя, подчинена его произволу.

III. В зависимости от господствующей идеологии, влияющей на содержание деятельности тоталитарного режима, их обычно подразделяют на фашизм, национал-социализм и коммунизм, а также теократический тоталитаризм. Исторически первой формой тоталитаризма считается коммунизм советского типа, начало которому положила военно-коммунистическая система, в общих чертах сформировавшаяся в 1918 г., так как она предполагала полное устранение частной собственности и, следовательно, всякой автономии личности, абсолютную власть над нею государства. И все же характеристика социализма советского типа как тоталитаризма одностороння и не раскрывает всего содержания и целей политики в этом типе общества. Несмотря на преимущественно тоталитарные формы политической организации, социалистической системе были присущи и гуманные цели: всеобщее образование, доступность для каждого человека достижений науки и искусства, социальная защищенность людей и т.д. Начиная с 60-х годов ХХ столетия, многие западные политологи перестали квалифицировать политический строй СССР как тоталитарный, предпочитая описывать как определенную разновидность авторитаризма.

Вторая разновидность тоталитарных политических систем – фашизм. Впервые фашистский режим был установлен в 1922 г. в Италии. Итальянский фашизм тяготел не столько к радикальному строительству нового общества, сколько к возрождению итальянской нации и величия Римской империи, установлению твердого государственного порядка. Фашизм претендовал на восстановление или очищение “народной души”, обеспечение коллективной идентичности на культурной или этнической почве, ликвидацию массовой преступности. Бенито Муссолини уверенно рассматривал тоталитаризм в качестве новации ХХ века, утверждая: партия, которая управляет тоталитарно – новый факт в истории, для которого аналогии и сравнения неуместны.

Третья разновидность тоталитаризма – национал-социализм. Как реальный политический и социальный порядок он возник в Германии в 1933 г. Национал-социализм был родственен и близок к фашизму. Резко о феномене тоталитаризма в его национал-социалистском (нацистском) варианте в Германии высказался в книге “Вождь” (1044) Конрад Хейден (1901-1966). Его суждение можно, вероятно, отнести ко всем первоначалам тоталитарных порядков: “Из обломков отмерших классов встает новый класс интеллектуалов, и во главе его маршируют самые безжалостные, те, кому нечего терять, - вооруженная богема, кому война – мать родная, а гражданская война - отчизна”.

Четвертым примером теократического тоталитаризма могут служить муллократия в Иране после революции Хомейни, режим талибов в Афганистане и т.п.

IV. В настоящее время тоталитарные режимы не играют на мировой арене сколько-нибудь существенной роли, ареал их распространения существенно сократился. Х. Линц в своей типологии политических режимов зафиксировал в качестве особой посттоталитарную систему властвования. К посттоталитарным порядкам он относит советский режим в СССР после смерти Иосифа Виссарионовича Сталина (1879-1953). Главные характеристики посттоталитаризма хорошо описаны Милованом Джиласом: ослабление полицейских служб или их нейтрализация с помощью армии; разрешение кризиса управления путем создания центра власти уже в виде коллективного, а не персонального руководства; пересмотр роли партии в обществе; постепенный процесс либерализации политической системы во избежание открытой или скрытой оппозицией переворота.

Политологи выделяют три состояния посттоталитарного режима:

- ранний посттоталитаризм наиболее близок к тоталитарному правлению, однако отличается от него возникновением ограничителей на власть лидера (СССР при Никите Сергеевиче Хрущеве (1953-1964 гг.);

- поздний посттоталитаризм все более терпимо относится к критике режима (Чехословакия 1977-1989 гг.);

- при зрелой посттоталитарной власти значительно преобразуются все характеристики прежней политической системы, неизменной остается лишь руководящая роль партии (Венгрия 1982-1988 гг.).

Характерные признаки посттоталитарных режимов (отсутствие политического плюрализма, появление элементов социального и экономического плюрализма, сохранение официальной идеологии при сравнительном уменьшении степени идеологизированности общества, некоторое ослабление мобилизации граждан через существующие институты, но при обеспечении необходимого уровня конформизма по отношению к режиму, бюрократизация номенклатурного руководства) выступают как предпосылки их либерализации и последующей демократизации.

История вроде бы вынесла свой вердикт тоталитаризму. Но застрахован ли мир от рецидивов подобной организации власти? Как показывает социальная практика, система тотальной власти не способна гибко приспосабливаться к интенсивной динамике современных обществ со сложной гаммой разнообразных интересов. Она – внутренне закрытая система, построенная на принципе гомеостазиса (сохранения внутреннего равновесия, не взирая на воздействия извне), движущаяся по законам самоизоляции. Тоталитарный тип политических систем смог появиться лишь на узком временном пространстве, которое предоставила история некоторым странам. Это не значит, тем не менее, что у него нет шансов на возрождение на том или ином локальном уровне и в ХХI столетии. Окончательное уничтожение призрака тоталитаризма органически связано не только с наличием демократических институтов и вовлечением стран и народов в новые информационные отношения. Колоссальное значение имеют и понимание людьми ценностей демократии, осознание ими как гражданами своей чести и достоинства, рост их социальной ответственности и инициативы.

ТЕМА 10.

КУППАЕВА. ПОСОБИЕ.

THEME 10. THE CIVIL SOCIETY

The lecture purpose: consists in the analysis of research of a phenomenon of a civil society, revealing of its signs, society structures, in the complex analysis of the mechanism of meaningful dialogue of the state and a civil society in Kazakhstan.

Keywords: acivil society, signs of a civil society, principles of a civil society, structure of a civil society.

7.1. Modern concepts researches of a phenomenon of a civil society

7.2. The Problem of a civil society in a retrospective show of philosophical and political thought

7.3. Actual problems of the further perfection of the mechanism of meaningful dialogue of a civil society and the state in Kazakhstan.

The civil society represents one of key categories of a modern political science. In modern understanding the civil society is a society with the developed economic, cultural, legal and political relations between its members, independent of the state, but co-operating with it; this society of citizens of the high social, economic, political, cultural and moral status creating together with the state developed legal relations. Thus the reality of a civil society is defined by a parity of an ideal, the ideal project and really reached condition of a society which really carries out such project. It, basically, infinite process of perfection of a society, the power, a policy and the person, covering all without an exception of an aspect of life, also as processes of achievement of freedom, equality, justice and others social, political, moral and cultural values.

With is ideal-typological the points of view the civil society is:

- Some kind of social and sociocultural space in which are connected and individuals co-operate among themselves independent from each other and from the state;

- System of maintenance of ability to live social, sociocultural and spiritual spheres, their manufacture, reproduction and transfer from generation to generation;

- System of public institutes independent and independent of the state and relations which urged to provide conditions for socialisation and self-realisation of separate individuals and collectives, realisation of private interests and requirements, both individual, and collective.

Entering system of the public relations, the separate individual at all does not lose the personal beginning. From the moral point of view the person should not turn to simple means for which the prime target is the society, the state or other collective formation. The society in that case acts as the union of persons, without them it is deprived any sense. Quality of a society depends on quality of the persons making it setting the seal of the will, aspirations, moral reference points on formation of public life. The political scientists studying processes of formation and development of a civil society, on the first place put freedom and natural abilities of the separate individual as independent, independent unit of social action.

The special problem which has caused centuries-old polemic, relations of a civil society with the state are. Mutual relations of a civil society with the state are characterised, basically, following moments:

 Formation and development of a civil society contacts formation of bourgeois public relations, the statement of a principle of formal equality;

 he civil society is based on private and other patterns of ownership, market economy, political pluralism;

 The civil society exists along with the state as force rather independent and resisting to it which are with it in inconsistent unity;

 The civil society represents system which is constructed on the basis of horizontal communications between subjects (a coordination principle) and to which self-organising and self-controllability are peculiar;

 The civil society is community of the free citizens-proprietors realising in such quality, and consequently - ready to incur all completeness of economic and political responsibility for a society condition;

 To development of a civil society and formation of legal statehood there is a society and state rapprochement, their interosculation: in essence, the lawful state is a way of the organisation of a civil society, its political form;

 Interaction of a civil society and a lawful state is directed on formation of a legal society, on creation democratic socially-lawful state.

In division of political and social spheres, political and social functions one of the most important features of a civil society also consists. Here legal status of the person is separated from its social and economic role in a civil society. It simultaneously both the private person, and the citizen of a society. The sphere of private interests, wage labour and the private rights here is released from political control. It is observed certain split positions of a considerable part of people, on the one hand, as persons, members of a civil society, and, with another, - as citizens of the state, members of political community. This cleavage, in particular, is shown and that the majority of people even in the most democratic and stable countries of the world, the life-support dealt with by essential problems, pay insignificant attention to political sphere, considering it as far from life realities.

The civil society is inseparable from existence of legally issued, structurally fixed and psychologically provided pluralism any, including sociopolitical, activity, its material and ideological bases. Thus the private life sphere becomes a taboo for any political imperious intervention if to it there was no expression of free will of the person. Though and in this case transformation of a problem of this or that person into the public fact as intended action - is inadmissible. Degree of an embodiment of this imperative in realities of public life is the first indicator of existence of a civil society and its efficiency. In this plan, for example, the institute of civil freedom in its active functioning, and is even more exact - the institute of human rights is a measure of social responsibility in complete functioning of sociopolitical system.

From all components of the organisation and functioning of the democratic power the following is fundamentally essential to a civil society first of all:

Its legitimacy, that is authenticity of democratic reception of the mandate on the power from the people, the voters which will is really free and in civil-legal, in political and in the socially-psychological relation;

Generality, completeness of democratism, that is its reality in all forms of the power including in particular effectively operating dependence of the power on the law and a submission to control to it in spite of the fact that in the primary source politically power structures (lawful state) create this law and realise on own will;

Efficiency, that is it is how much real and on internal psychological motivation the mighty of this world realises the mandate received from the people, in interests of people how much they solve problems of their life not in forms of privileges for the elite, and in the forms socially providing for each possibility to create vital world.

The basic tendency of influence of a civil society on power structures and a policy as a whole consists in restriction and overcoming of political alienation. This tendency is realised by means of transformation of political action into technology of the decision of social problems, and power carriers - in hired workers of the civil society which political power over people and their associations is supposed only within necessity of execution of their functions and only at corresponding competence, ability to solve a problem of free development of the person and a society.

The main mission of a civil society consists in consensus achievement between various social forces and interests. It urged to define norms and the borders, capable to block destructive potential of struggle of various forces and to direct them to a creative channel.

In building of a civil society in modern conditions along with observance of human rights and the citizen socially responsible and under control action of the power, civilisation of basic principles of motivation of its behaviour on the foreground puts forward creation of a zone of social and economic safety of the person in relation to the state and to illegal structures. Safety means join also providing of access to public health services, formation, culture, the minimum bases of a choice of activity on the calling, socially guaranteed indemnification of labour expenses with a simultaneous interdiction of all forms of compulsion.

Principles, signs (features) and structure of a modern civil society. It is possible to specify a number of the most general ideas and the principles underlying any civil society, irrespective of specificity of this or that country. Them concern:

1) economic freedom, variety of patterns of ownership, market relations;

2) an unconditional recognition and protection of natural human rights and the citizen;

3) legitimacy of the democratic power;

4) equality of all before the law and justice, reliable legal security of the person;

5) a lawful state based on a principle of division and interaction of the authorities;

6) political and ideological pluralism, presence of legal opposition;

7) freedom of opinions, words and the press, independence of mass media;

8) non-interference of the state to private life of citizens, their mutual duties and responsibility;

9) the class world, partnership and the national consent;

10) the effective social policy providing a worthy standard of living of people.

For distinction of such difficult social phenomenon what the civil society at the present stage of its development is, it is useful to allocate its such lines, as:

· High consciousness of people;

· Their high material security on the basis of possession of the property;

· Wide communications between members of a society;

· Presence under control overcome alienation from a government society where its carriers are only the hired workers possessing corresponding competence, skill, ability to solve a society problem;

· Power decentralisation;

· Transfer of a part of the power to self-government institutions;

· The coordination of positions of the state and a civil society instead of conflicts between them;

· The developed feeling collectivity, provided with consciousness of an accessory to the general culture, a civilisation, the nation;

· The person of a civil society focused on creation, spiritual development.

Features of a modern civil society are closely connected with its structure, which components - various public formations and the public institutes providing conditions for realisation of private interests and requirements of individuals, the collectives, capable to "press" on the government to force it to serve a society. The structure in this sense represents an internal structure of a society, reflects variety and interaction of its components providing integrity and dynamism of development of this organism. It is possible to present structure of a modern civil society in the form of five basic systems reflecting corresponding spheres of its ability to live:

· Social system which covers set objectively generated communities people and mutual relations between them, that is a primary, basic layer of the civil society, making defining impact on ability to live of its other subsystems. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to designate the block of the relations connected with a continuation of the family human, by reproduction of the person, his life prolongation, education of children (these are the family and relation institutes caused by its existence, providing connection biological and social has begun in a society). The second block is made by the relations reflecting especially social essence of the person (these are concrete relations of the person with the person as directly, and in various collectives - clubs, public associations and etc.). The third block the mediated relations between big social общностями form people (groups, layers, classes, the nations, races);

· The economic system represents set of economic institutes and relations which people in the course of realisation of relations of the property, manufactures, distributions, an exchange and consumption of a cumulative public product enter. As a primary layer the relations of the property penetrating all fabric of economic relations and all cycle of a social production and consumption here act. Relations of manufacture of the material and non-material blessings make the second the most important for public system a structural layer. At the heart of manufacture the constructive labour of members of a society lies, therefore an integral part of economic relations are labour relations. More mediated and abstract character is carried by relations of production which owing to the specificity become independent of will and consciousness of the concrete person. As structural elements of economic system the private, municipal, joint-stock, co-operative enterprises, farms, individual private enterprises of citizens act. Relations of distribution, an exchange, consumption of a public cumulative product are an important component of economic system though they in certain degree function and within the limits of other system - social.

· The political system is made of complete self-regulated elements (organisations) - the states, political parties, political movements, associations and relations between them. The individual politically represents itself as the citizen, the deputy, the party member, the organisation. A deep, intrinsic layer here are relations concerning the power which penetrate political system in all its environments, at all stages of its existence. Imperious relations are rather various: these are relations between the state and other structural elements, between state structures and establishments etc. the Special place is occupied with the relations developing in connection with activity of political parties, with an ultimate goal as which the political (state) power acts always. Besides especially imperious, there is a whole scale of the political relations covering problems of association of citizens in the political organisations, freedom of speech, guarantees of suffrages of citizens, functioning of forms of direct democracy etc.;

· The spiritually-cultural system is formed of human relations, their associations, the state and a society as a whole concerning the spiritual and cultural blessings and the corresponding materialised institutes, establishments (educational, scientific, cultural, religious) through which these relations are realised. The mainframe in this sphere is made by the relations connected with formation which is the base in business of development of the human person. Its condition characterises prospects of development of a concrete society. Without formation cannot normally function not only spiritually-cultural sphere, but also public system as a whole. Vital for the person and the societies of the relation causing occurrence and development of a science, culture, religion. Ways of formation of these relations are various, their influence on the person is ambiguous, but consolidating factors are their orientation on preservation of historical experience, humanistic traditions, accumulation and development scientific, moral-spiritual, cultural values;

· The information system develops as a result of dialogue of people with each other directly and through mass media. As its structural elements the public, municipal and private organisations, establishments, the enterprises, and also citizens and their associations which are carrying out manufacture and release of mass media can act. Information relations have through character, they penetrate all spheres of a civil society.

It is necessary to underline especially that it is impossible to represent a civil society as a certain intermediate link between spheres of manufacture, a policy, the information, spiritually-cultural values, social relations for it on the functions plays the central role in ability to live of any state-organised society. Thus each of the mentioned systems can remain and function only when all the others also regularly carry out the functions Thus, the market economy, a civil society and political democracy are closely interconnected and interdependent.