Suchergebnisse

Актуальность темы исследования в настоящее время определяется тем фактом, что электронное пространство, по большей части, является повторением реальной политики, что свидетельствует о том, что интернет-технологии глубоко укоренились в политической жизни общества. Целью данной работы было выяснение особенностей информационных технологий (ИТ) и их места в современном политическом процессе на примере Казахстана. Доказано, что Интернет является жизненно важной частью любого общества, особенно демократического, где он выполняет функции социальных, экономических и политических институтов. В этой статье приводится обоснование важности информационных технологий в политической жизни общества. Особое внимание уделяется усилению их влияния при принятии важных политических решений. В данном исследовании также приведены примеры использования информационных технологий в современных политических процессах. Детальный анализ теоретических концепций, их интерпретация применительно к Казахстану, детальное изучение моделей медиаполитики открывает возможности и перспективы для новых научных исследований процессов трансформации и модернизации информационных технологий в политическом процессе.

This article is devoted to the history of the Department of Political Science and Sociology of Political Processes of the Faculty of Sociology at Lomonosov Moscow State University. The stages of the organization and formation of the Department, the processes of teaching formation and methodological activities, which have occurred over the thirty-year history of the Faculty of Sociology, are considered, and the priority areas of the professors research works are outlined. ; Представленная статья посвящена историческому аспекту развития кафедры политологии и социологии политических процессов социологического факультета Московского государственного университета имени М.В. Ломоносова. Рассмотрены произошедшие за тридцатилетнюю историю социологического факультета этапы организации и формирования кафедры, процессы становления учебно-методической деятельности, а также изложены приоритетные направления научно-исследовательской работы профессорскопреподавательского состава.

The article analyzes approaches to the study of the concept of youth as an actor in political processes. The sociopolitical process is a complex phenomenon that involves many diff erent legal and physical entities and actors. Democratic tendencies, pluralism of opinions, diversity of forms of participation of citizens, including young people, in socio-political and spiritual life and their institutionalization allow us to speak about the existence of various types of youth associations and structures designed to perform important functions in society and the state.

This article studies the problems of ethno-political processes in Afghanistan's sociallife. This shock of social and political life was a manifestation of tension in the ethno-national sphere, originating in the time of the formation of the Afghan state, which was created by the Pashtun tribes with all the ensuing consequences.

If the beginning of the 21st century, with its rapid changes, somewhat led into deep confusion of the world in general and the country in particular, then the arisen is unknown from where Covid 19 and the so-called digitalization are already testing the strength of the human community once again and even more with tough manifestations. Target attitudes, formed over decades, are shifted in the criteria. Living preferences, built priorities, prevailing moral but ethical standards. Of course, the forms of social consciousness, among which economic science, if you use a generalizing term is crucial. And the history of countries with their various characteristics confirms this, as well as the fact that science itself is not represented is a set of dogmas or once and for all frozen truths. Economic science, reflecting, to one degree or another, the cyclically developing economic world, also changes its object, subject, methodological approaches, tools analysis.

The article attempts to provide a definition for the problem area of the philosophy of politics, political philosophy and political science. Given the lack of a well-established distinction between the subjects of these sciences in the Russian-language discourse, the author turns to the English-language tradition. The analysis of this discourse shows the following: 1) the absence of a distinction between political philosophy and the philosophy of politics, which is replaced by political ontology as part of political philosophy; 2) the existence of a distinction between political theory and political philosophy; 3) the dependence of the paradigm of the relationship between political theory and political philosophy on the consensus developed in the national intellectual tradition. In the English-language discourse, the question of the relationship between political science and political philosophy comes to the fore. The latter is considered as a subordinate, integral part of political science. It is shown that, based on the criterion of "insufficient scientificity", attempts to exclude political philosophy from the political science do not stop. The article substantiates the position according to which, despite their apparent similarity, the subjects of political science and political philosophy do not coincide – the disciplinary ontology of political science can become the subject of political philosophy. When discussing the relationship between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy, the article presents several hypotheses. First, a distinction is made between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy and the author argues that they are distinct. Secondly, the position, according to which the philosophy of politics belongs to the field of philosophy, and political philosophy to political science, is critically examined, and the fact that the two disciplines belong to the philosophical corpus of knowledge is substantiated. Thirdly, it is proposed to demarcate between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy in accordance with the difference between their subjects. The subject of philosophy of politics is the phenomenon of the political, while the subject of political philosophy is political phenomena.

The article is devoted to analysis of new Marxism as a key methodological
trends of political science research. Historical events of the last century and the
ensuing updated the creative legacy of Marx and contributed to its reconsideration,
which was the enrichment of political science, development of methodology in its area
schools and trends, developing ideas known German scientist.

Relatively recently, students of authoritarianism have not paid much attention to institutions. It was believed that since authoritarian rule is generally an arbitrariness, its institutionalism is not really important. Modern approach, however, is that institutions in authoritarian regimes are no less important than in a democracy. This is also applicable to such a political institution traditionally associated with democracy as elections. Recent works on comparative authoritarianism provide more evidence that holding election may help autocrats to survive. Starting from the "third wave" of democratization, the political regimes of "electoral authoritarianism," that means regimes that are authoritarian in nature, but successfully implementing initially democratic political institutions including elections, are becoming more widespread. The regular holding of moderately competitive elections is characteristic of two the most important types of electoral authoritarianism, both hegemonic and competitive authoritarian regimes. This article attempts to generalize and systematize the conceptual views available in literature on the elections role in authoritarian regimes. Four main functions of authoritarian elections are identified and analyzed: legitimation, display of strength, co-optation and information acquisition. ; Еще сравнительно недавно исследователи авторитаризма не уделяли серьезного внимания институтам. Считалось, что поскольку авторитарная власть – это по большей части произвол, ее институциональное оформление не имеет большого значения. Современный подход, однако, заключается в том, что институты в авторитарных режимах не менее важны, чем при демократии. Это относится и к такому традиционно ассоциируемому с демократией политическому институту, как выборы. Последние работы по сравнительному авторитаризму дают все больше подтверждений того, что проведение выборов может способствовать выживанию автократов. Начиная с «третьей волны» демократизации все большее распространение получают политические режимы «электорального авторитаризма», т.е. режимы, авторитарные по своей природе, однако успешно имплементирующие исходно демократические политические институты, в том числе выборы. Регулярное проведение умеренно конкурентных выборов характерно для обеих важнейших разновидностей электорального авторитаризма – как гегемонистских, так и конкурентных авторитарных режимов. В настоящей статье предпринимается попытка обобщить и систематизировать имеющиеся в литературе концептуальные представления о роли выборов в авторитарных режимах. Выделяются и анализируются четыре основные функции авторитарных выборов: легитимация, демонстрация силы, кооптация и сбор информации.