Search results

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.

The article presents political-psychological approach to understanding youth political leadership. This approach has complex character and allows to implement interdisciplinary synthesis of the provisions of different branches of social sciences and humanities to study the considered phenomenon in the framework of political science subject field. We highlight such basic parameters to determine youth political leaders as origin from the sphere of youth policy, young people's perception of such leaders as their own representatives, promotion of the career ladder in public policy and public administration. This study identifies and conceptually substantiates three dimensions of youth political leadership: personal-professional, status-role, image-symbolic. The article considers personal qualities and professional characteristics which are necessary for youth political leaders, status-role positions in the system of power hierarchy, career trajectories and political recruiting specificity, the features of youth political leaders' image shaping in the consciousness of youth.

Статья раскрывает содержание понятия международного спортивного движение, которое являются как важным социальным фактором общественного развития, так и политическим фактором, влияющим на международные отношения. Спортивные достижения на международном уровне служат отражением силы государства, его авторитета в международных делах. Особое внимание сегодня уделяется спорту как инструменту политики «мягкой силы» государства.

The populism phenomenon has become a mainstraim political research topic at the beginning of the 21st century. Scholars have focused on different aspects of this phenomenon. In the peer-reviewed monograph "Populism in power. Strategies and Consequences of a Populist Stay" (Wiesbaden, 2021) the author analyzes the results of a populist government in a geographical area. It is argued that populism in power has the following characteristics: charismatic leadership, public political opposition, networking and shutdown of patronage institutions that stand between populist status and the so-called "true people", paving the way for the autocratization of assemblies. The author shows the peculiar position of populist governments: how they come to power and what they do as a political elite to create their own legitimacy. Most of them act as the leaders of a permanent election campaign. The first step towards their new legitimacy is always the delegitimization of any opposition and this naturally opens the way to anti-pluralism.

A survey conducted by "Centre for Socio-economic and Humanities Research" at the Kama Polytechnic Institute in the city of Naberezhnye Chelny in October 1999 represents a specific material for the analysis of age differences in the political culture within a particular area - a major industrial city of the Republic of Tatarstan.

Political economy moves in wave-like patterns. Initially it had a universal character, simply as economic knowledge. Then came Karl Marx, with his Capital and critique of political economy. Later still came the division that saw some scholars accept Marxist political economy and others, the ideas denoted by the Russian transcription "ekomomiks". This verbal history of the terms that have been used to designate economic science may be topped off by referring to the fates and activity of the people who restore its fortunes. There are few such people, but the main thing is that they exist. Among them is the professor (and political economist!) V.V. Chekmarev. The purpose of this article is to show the influence of political economy on all aspects of human existence by reviewing the stages in the life of an outstanding representative of the scholarly world of economists, a person who has given 50 of his 70 years to the service of science.

The article considers the dependencies of interval variables–assessments (respondents' attitude to political parties, political leaders, satisfaction with the work of state bodies, attitude to the results of voting) from the nominal parameter "Political activity". To analyze the dependencies of both quantitative and nominal variables a new version of the author's method is applied. It became possible to talk about the dependence of a quantitative parameter on a multi-valued nominal variable and select strong dependencies for further description.

The article deals with the methodological problems of transformation processes in political science in the late XIX-th-early XX centuries and in the period between the two world wars. The author reveals the causes and origins of the crisis phenomena in political science due to the new political realities in the world and new trends in the political science development. The process of modern political science formation is analyzed in its gradual development (formal-legal, traditional, behavioral and post-behavioral). The special role of the Chicago revolution in political science, which created the environment and the ground for the emergence of the "behavioral" revolution, is revealed. The main program provisions of the "behavioral" revolution are indicated, its results, the main vectors of political science development in the post-behavioral era are revealed.The role of structural functionalism (G. Almond and his school) in the formation of modern political science is revealed. The article deals with the interaction of political science with related social disciplines, which led to the emergence of some hybrid disciplines of political knowledge, including political sociology and political management. The content of the hybridization concept is revealed. The role of sociology in this process as the "main donor" of political science in the considered era is revealed. Object-subject areas of political sociology and political management, their place and role in the mechanism of socio-political systems functioning in the subject field of political science are defined. Generalizing conclusions are made. ; В статье рассматриваются методологические проблемы трансформационных процессов в политической науке в конце XIX — начале ХХ столетий и в период между двумя мировыми войнами. Раскрываются причины и истоки зарождения кризисных явлений в политической науке, обусловленные новыми политическими реалиями, сложившимися в мире, и новыми тенденциями в развитии самой политической науки. Процесс становления современной политической науки анализируется в ее поэтапном развитии (формально-правовом, традиционном, поведенческом и пост-поведенческом). Раскрыта особая роль "чикагской революции" в политологии, создавшей среду и почву для возникновения "поведенческой" революции. Обозначены основные программные положения "поведенческой" революции, выявлены ее результаты, основные векторы развития политической науки в пост-поведенческую эпоху.Раскрыта роль структурного функционализма (Г. Алмонд и его школа) в формировании современной политической науки. Рассматривается взаимодействие политической науки со смежными социальными дисциплинами, приведшее к появлению целого ряда гибридных дисциплин политического знания, в том числе политической социологии и политического менеджмента. Раскрыто содержание понятия "гибридизация". Выявлена роль социологии в этом процессе как "главного донора" политической науки в рассматриваемую эпоху. Определены объектно-предметные области политической социологии и политического менеджмента, их место и роль в механизме функционирования социально-политических систем, в предметном поле политической науки. Сделаны обобщающие выводы.

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.