Suchergebnisse

A large part of the authors (who, as a rule, position themselves as political philosophers) generally find it unacceptable to talk about any institutional agreements between political elites in describing a democratic political regime. Those who recognize the existence of such covenants indicate that. that inter-city agreements can hinder democratization, limit the demand for law and political competition. Scientists who adhere to the concept of pluralistic democracy, on the contrary, consider pacts, compromises, and elite agreements as the central element of successful institutional building in the long run. The purpose of the article is to consider the mechanism of practical implementation of the elite's pact as a phenomenon of political reality and its importance for the institutionalization of political relations. Inclusion of all politically significant groups in direct negotiations leads to conflict resolution in several ways. First of all, it allows the parties to openly adhere to their positions in the negotiation process. An exception to the discussion of any significant item may lead to the adoption of such a final decision, which may not be in line with the positions of the absolute majority of the most important issues, which in turn increases the likelihood of objections from the non-negotiated process. Conversely, direct participation in direct negotiations allows the parties to feel their own contribution to the final decision, while the exclusion of any party to the negotiations may lead to the perception of the process as illegitimate for fundamental reasons. Participation in these talks also helps convince representatives of different groups that a compromise was the only way to attain, at least, some of their requirements. While the inclusion of all politically significant groups in open negotiations is an important factor, the number of negotiators should not be excessive. The decision-making process takes place more dynamically when the number of participants remains rationally limited, as demonstrated by numerous experiments in the field of social psychology. As long as the rule of public accountability of elected representatives is maintained for their historic decisions, it does not matter how they accept them. The meaning has only the intrinsic result of these decisions, which must be taken by all politically significant groups, and that the regime that is created in the process of making such decisions will be recognized by all groups as legitimate. This is the rule of law for the elites: the reliable provision of rights, legality and property, at least for those who already have access to the institutions. Progress towards greater equality before the law looks like joining new pockets of this pact, spreading order and legality to wider strata until they reach out to everyone (thus the pact itself is gradually improving and complicated, developing institutions that support it) . Restricted access procedures, thus, evolve from weak, balancing on the brink of violence, to mature, who are on the verge of openness. In this case, the progress is nonlinear, and the procedures of limited access tend to degrade to a greater extent than to develop.Key words: elite pact, political elite, political institutionalization. ; Розглянуто поняття «пакт еліт» як фактор інституціоналізації політичних відносин, особливостіта значення міжелітних угод. Показано, що ці угоди не можуть бути стійкими без включення в прямий переговорний процес всіх політично значущих груп інтересів. Разом із тим надмірне розширення кола учасників переговорів не сприяє досягненню стійких угод. Міжелітні угоди формують порядки обмеженого доступу, які по мірі приєднання до інституційних угод все більш ширших верств населення можуть еволюціонувати в напрямку порядку вільного доступу. Проте така еволюція не є обов'язковою, а її дестабілізація може завершитись регресом.Ключові слова: пакт еліт, політична еліта, політична інституціоналізація. Рассмотрено понятие «пакт элит» как фактор институционализации политических отношений, особенности и значение межэлитных соглашений. Показано, что эти соглашения не могут быть устойчивыми без включения в прямой переговорный процесс всех политически значимых групп интересов. Вместе с тем чрезмерное расширение круга участников переговоров не способствует достижению устойчивых соглашений. Межэлитные соглашения формируют порядки ограниченного доступа, которые по мере присоединения к институциональным соглашениям все более широких слоев населения могут эволюционировать в направлении порядка свободного доступа. Однако такая эволюция не является обязательной, а ее дестабилизация может завершиться регрессом.Ключевые слова: пакт элит, политическая элита, политическая институционализация. A large part of the authors (who, as a rule, position themselves as political philosophers) generally find it unacceptable to talk about any institutional agreements between political elites in describing a democratic political regime. Those who recognize the existence of such covenants indicate that. that inter-city agreements can hinder democratization, limit the demand for law and political competition. Scientists who adhere to the concept of pluralistic democracy, on the contrary, consider pacts, compromises, and elite agreements as the central element of successful institutional building in the long run. The purpose of the article is to consider the mechanism of practical implementation of the elite's pact as a phenomenon of political reality and its importance for the institutionalization of political relations. Inclusion of all politically significant groups in direct negotiations leads to conflict resolution in several ways. First of all, it allows the parties to openly adhere to their positions in the negotiation process. An exception to the discussion of any significant item may lead to the adoption of such a final decision, which may not be in line with the positions of the absolute majority of the most important issues, which in turn increases the likelihood of objections from the non-negotiated process. Conversely, direct participation in direct negotiations allows the parties to feel their own contribution to the final decision, while the exclusion of any party to the negotiations may lead to the perception of the process as illegitimate for fundamental reasons. Participation in these talks also helps convince representatives of different groups that a compromise was the only way to attain, at least, some of their requirements. While the inclusion of all politically significant groups in open negotiations is an important factor, the number of negotiators should not be excessive. The decision-making process takes place more dynamically when the number of participants remains rationally limited, as demonstrated by numerous experiments in the field of social psychology. As long as the rule of public accountability of elected representatives is maintained for their historic decisions, it does not matter how they accept them. The meaning has only the intrinsic result of these decisions, which must be taken by all politically significant groups, and that the regime that is created in the process of making such decisions will be recognized by all groups as legitimate. This is the rule of law for the elites: the reliable provision of rights, legality and property, at least for those who already have access to the institutions. Progress towards greater equality before the law looks like joining new pockets of this pact, spreading order and legality to wider strata until they reach out to everyone (thus the pact itself is gradually improving and complicated, developing institutions that support it) . Restricted access procedures, thus, evolve from weak, balancing on the brink of violence, to mature, who are on the verge of openness. In this case, the progress is nonlinear, and the procedures of limited access tend to degrade to a greater extent than to develop.Key words: elite pact, political elite, political institutionalization.

The authors examine the modern concept of national elite Ukrainian scientific literature in terms of social status and social value approach. It is shown that the trunk area highlighting the role of the political elite in modern domestic research is value-based approach, ie understanding it as a social group, which aims to ensure the development of the state and welfare of its citizens. This coverage importance elite social status is a minor character. Estimates are results of modern national political elite is mostly negative.Keywords: national elite, political elite, elite classification. ; Автори розглядають сучасні концепції національної еліти в українській науковій літературі з точки зору соціально-статусного та соціально-ціннісного підходів. Показано, що магістральним напрямком висвітлення ролі політичної еліти в сучасних вітчизняних дослідженнях є ціннісний підхід, тобто її розуміння як соціальної групи, яка покликана забезпечувати розвиток держави та добробут її громадян. При цьому висвітлення значення соціального статусу еліти носить другорядний характер. Оцінки ж результатів діяльності сучасної вітчизняної політичної еліти є здебільшого негативними.Ключові слова: національна еліта, політична еліта, класифікація еліт.