Search results

The article explores the issue on the perception of the concept "national security" areas, models and methods of its maintenance by the population. The author uses materials of the sociological survey conducted by the Laboratory of problems of increasing the efficiency of state and municipal management of the South-Russian Institute of Management - branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. The survey was carried out with the participation of leading experts in various aspects of national security, representing 27 Russian higher educational institutions and research centers in Moscow, Astrakhan, Barnaul, Belgorod, Dushanbe, Krasnodar, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk, Pyatigorsk, Rostov-on-Don, Saint Petersburg, Syktyvkar, Sochi, Ufa. It is noted that as a priority political governance model that implements the basic concept of national security, respondents identified a democratic model. Most respondents believe that a unified security model in the Russian regions is ineffective, and such model should be developed taking into account the specificity of each subject. The study showed that the public's attention to the issue of national security is not sustainable, as determined by situational factors. It is proved that the motives of anxiety formed in the Russian public mind are not sustainable, and situational. Respondents see the economic cooperation more effective incentive to maintain national interests than by force. Estimation of the population of the priority issues of security shows that most respondents appreciate the organization of work to ensure the safety and anti-terrorism security in the sphere of national relations. The findings give grounds to assert that the focus of public attention to the problem of national security does not yet occupy the leading positions. To a greater extent, respondents focused on the issues of public safety, reducing threats and risks in their daily lives. Apparently, despite the external and internal attempts by certain forces to escalate the symptoms of military threats, economic and political instability, the state authorities have managed to maintain a stable situation on the ground and to instill confidence in the stability of the government itself. However, assessments of respondents showing pain points (as discussed above), on which the regional and federal authorities and the public should focus their attention. This should avoid focusing on minor topics objects, eliminate switching public attention on themes and subjects that do not require a real public outcry and do not carry the real threats to the individual, society and state. Thus, the problem of improving the state policy in the sphere of security exists objectively, and its resolution should be ensured not only by the professional power sector, deputies and representatives of the executive power, but also qualified experts from civil society and scientific environment. (author's abstract)

The article is devoted to analysis of formation processes of interaction between the state, civil society and business in Russia. As an empirical basis the authors use the results of sociological research conducted by Public Opinion Fund in 2015, scientists of the South-Russian Institute of Management – Branch of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in 2012 and 2016. 44 % of respondents in the regions expressed a preference for the social partnership of government, business and civil society. The authors believe that the implementation of the mission of the Social Contract-2030 is possible through the mechanism of public-private partnership (PPP), which is the most promising and effective institution in modern economicpolitical condition of Russia. The strategic goals of the state consist in providing transfer of the country to the path of innovative development, aimed at reducing the export-resource dependence of the country in the context of the mission of Social Contract-2030 and the national security strategy of the country is impossible without formation of a partnership between the state, companies and commercial structures. Each of the members of the partnership provides a contribution to the implementation of the project. The business structure for its part contributes investment funds, human resources, effective business technologies, flexibility and responsiveness in decision-making, innovation and other private initiatives and available resources. The state in turn provides a partnership through their powers with necessary legal and institutional resources that ensure protective measures for the formation of a competitive and low-risk business. The main task of civil society is to help citizens in solving social problems and the implementation of control over the power structures in the fulfillment of social obligations of the state. The question of increasing the efficiency of mechanisms of Social contract-2030 implementation between the state, society, and business implies transparency of activities of public authorities and effective management of results.

Even English historian A. Toynbee claimed that each new generation of the “creative minority” (elite) periodically faced challenges of the time, to which it had to seek and give an adequate response. In case of an unsatisfactory answer, this “creative minority” should leave the historical stage, giving way to the more competent elite. The coronavirus crisis experienced by the global community in 2020 has become such a global challenge of our time for many people. And the public can make conclusions about the professional training and level of competence of the ruling elite groups judging from how effectively they cope with this challenge. But even now it can already be stated that the crisis has revealed a number of significant systemic failures in the functioning of political elites - their slow reaction to the event, disunity, clip consciousness and underestimation of the degree of risk, resources and their own capabilities. This article is devoted to the analysis of all these problems.

The history of the Russian autocracy, as well as the question of its character and historical significance, rests on the events of the Great Russian Revolution of 1917, which turned out to be an insurmountably fatal obstacle for it. A contemporary of the last Romanovs, the great Russian historian V.O. Kliuchevskii could observe and analyze the agony of the Russian autocracy, drawing on the experience of his academic knowledge of the history of Russian power and society. This part of his creative heritage should be considered as historical elitology, which directly follows from an analysis of the essence of the subjects of the highest power (elite), and in particular the ruling tsar's dynasty in Russia.