Suchergebnisse

The article analyzes a definition of the destabilization of a heterogeneous society in the scientific literature. Consuming in the dosages of political phenomena in the law of the spheres and in the systematic unsteadiness of the alternating operations of science-based science terms. From the proper and unified awareness of the significance of these definitions, further scientific (in the context of suitability for comparison and delineation with other concomitant phenomena) and practical value (use in forecasting and planning of political activity) of theoretical constructions will depend on the value of these definitions.To the historiography of the issue, put forward in the title of the article, can be attributed to scientific research and labor within:- theory of social cleavages of Lipset – Rokkana;- discourse around the concepts of «distributed rule», which particularly distinguishes the names of such bright comparators as A. Leiphart and D. Horowitz;- concepts of civilizational breakdowns by O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and S. Huntington.The purpose of this article is to substantiate the adequacy of the dynamic approach proposed by us to ascertaining the transformation of the lines of social separation into a threat to the integrity of the state, characterized by a sequence of stages of the disintegration of the integrity of polity, the application of the term «social split» as a stage following the division of society and preceding it collapse.The author argues that society in the modern state, as a heterogeneous integral system, operates in the interval between marginal interval points of the pre-political state of quasi-monotony and decay. The article states that the qualitative conditions of society in the context of secessional threats on this interval correspond only to two stages, which for different societies can be located at different «distances» from the «beginning / end» of the interval.The key difference between the stages of the author determines the presence of conflict articulation incompatible to the simultaneous satisfaction of interests allocated by primordial features of social groups. ; Аналізуються визначення дестабілізації гетерогенного суспільства у науковій літературі. За допомогою звернення до суміжних та синонімічних наукових визначень та побудови динамічної схеми з'ясовується атрибут суспільства у стані розколу. Обґрунтовується критерій застосування терміна в контексті загрози цілісності політичної організації суспільства. Пропонується розмежування змісту стадії «суспільного розколу» зі структурною характеристикою суспільства як неоднорідної системи та стадією «суспільного розділу».

The article analyzes a definition of the destabilization of a heterogeneous society in the scientific literature. Consuming in the dosages of political phenomena in the law of the spheres and in the systematic unsteadiness of the alternating operations of science-based science terms. From the proper and unified awareness of the significance of these definitions, further scientific (in the context of suitability for comparison and delineation with other concomitant phenomena) and practical value (use in forecasting and planning of political activity) of theoretical constructions will depend on the value of these definitions.To the historiography of the issue, put forward in the title of the article, can be attributed to scientific research and labor within:- theory of social cleavages of Lipset – Rokkana;- discourse around the concepts of «distributed rule», which particularly distinguishes the names of such bright comparators as A. Leiphart and D. Horowitz;- concepts of civilizational breakdowns by O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and S. Huntington.The purpose of this article is to substantiate the adequacy of the dynamic approach proposed by us to ascertaining the transformation of the lines of social separation into a threat to the integrity of the state, characterized by a sequence of stages of the disintegration of the integrity of polity, the application of the term «social split» as a stage following the division of society and preceding it collapse.The author argues that society in the modern state, as a heterogeneous integral system, operates in the interval between marginal interval points of the pre-political state of quasi-monotony and decay. The article states that the qualitative conditions of society in the context of secessional threats on this interval correspond only to two stages, which for different societies can be located at different «distances» from the «beginning / end» of the interval.The key difference between the stages of the author determines the presence of conflict articulation incompatible to the simultaneous satisfaction of interests allocated by primordial features of social groups. ; Аналізуються визначення дестабілізації гетерогенного суспільства у науковій літературі. За допомогою звернення до суміжних та синонімічних наукових визначень та побудови динамічної схеми з'ясовується атрибут суспільства у стані розколу. Обґрунтовується критерій застосування терміна в контексті загрози цілісності політичної організації суспільства. Пропонується розмежування змісту стадії «суспільного розколу» зі структурною характеристикою суспільства як неоднорідної системи та стадією «суспільного розділу».

This article studies the political struggles of local society in South Lebak who want to split from Lebak District. The reasons are ineffective and inefficient public services, abundant natural resource potential, and political dynasty saturation. Therefore, they continue to negotiate their territorial areas. This article attempts to answer how territorial politics works in the process of territorial splits. The results reveal: first, the political elite used the issue of territorial splits for electoral matters. Second, territorial splits are motivated not only by a group of elites in South Lebak or local politicians, but also by the local people's desire for long-term prosperity and exceptionally effective and efficient public services. However, the interests of the local elite groups are more dominant. This study found that there is a link between the interests of society and the local elites.Keywords: decentralization; election; elites; politics of territorial splits; South Lebak.

Political culture is the connecting link between the interests, needs, norms, and social status of the subjects of the political process and their political behaviour. As the legitimacy mediates dominance and submission, political culture mediates the consciousness and behaviour of the subject of policy. Political culture contains both the elements of positive assessment of the existing political system and the elements of negative evaluation. The number of positive values determines the degree of legitimacy of a political system. The paper aims to analyze the influence of political culture on the process of legitimating the legislative power in modern Russia. This aspect is of theoretical and practical significance for the functioning of the political system of modern Russia. ; Политическая культура – это опосредующее звено между интересами, потребностями, нормами, социальным статусом субъектов политического процесса и их политическим поведением. Как легитимность опосредует господство и подчинение, так политическая культура опосредует сознание и поведение субъекта политики. Политическая культура содержит в себе как элементы позитивной оценки существующей политической системы, так и элементы негативной оценки. Количество позитивных ценностей определяет степень легитимности той или иной политической системы. Цель статьи проанализировать влияние политической культуры на процесс легитимации законодательной власти в современной России. Данный аспект имеет теоретическую и практическую значимость для функционирования политической системы современной России.

From time immemorial religion has been a factor which united or split the society. Even in the modern society religious intolerance has caused fratricidal wars and disasters. At the same time religious intolerance (inside the society) is a serious resource in the hands of the states at variance in the aspect of splitting these countries and societies. From these considerations various missionary activities, which besides religious goals (propaganda and dissemination of their own religion and values), also pursue political aims, have been implemented.

Политическое сознание отражает в себе субъективную сторону политической жизни. Но политическое сознание это не только пассивное отражение политического бытия, оно способно опережать практику, прогнозировать развитие общественно-политических процессов и, как следствие, имеет возможность оказывать значительное воздействие на политическую жизнь, на развитие и состав политической культуры общества. Выполняя функции интеграции, целедостижения, адаптации и производства базовых латентных образцов политической системы, в современной российской обществе оно сталкивается с деформацией данных функций, вызванных разрушением в 1980-1990-х гг. ценностно-смысловых основ российского полиса. Это, с одной стороны, отражает, а с другой предопределяет ценностные расколы современной России, носящие глубокий и проблемный характер, которые могут быть преодолены не столько на пути споров о прошлом, сколько выработкой интегрирующего общество проекта будущего. ; Political consciousness reflects the subjective side of political life. But it has not only a passive reflection on political being, it is able to predict the development of socio-political processes and, as a consequence, it has the ability to exercise significant influence on political life, on the development and composition of the political culture of the society. Performing the role of integration, goal attainment, adaptation and production of basic samples of latent political system in the modern Russian society, it faces the deformation of these functions caused by the destruction of the axiological foundations of the Russian policy in the 1980-1990. On the one hand it reflects and on the other determines the value schisms in modern Russia, which bears the deep and troubled character. It can be overcome not so much in the way of disputes about the past, but by forming the project of the future which can integrate the society.

The article deals with the mechanism of functioning of the electoral system from the point of view of its perception as an institution for consolidating a split society. Attention is focused on the need to ensure consensus not only at the stage of political decision-making by the representative authorities, but also at the previous stage of their formation. The importance of the aspect of the consolidating bundling of legislatures for the stabilization of society is shown with the help of an interdisciplinary analogy of the principles of assessing the acceptability of the functioning of the judiciary according to established international practice. ; Рассматривается механизм функционирования избирательной системы с точки зрения восприятия ее в качестве института консолидации расколотого общества. Акцентируется внимание на необходимости обеспечения консенсуса не только на стадии принятия политических решений представительскими органами власти, но и на этапе их формирования. С помощью междисциплинарной аналогии с принципами оценки приемлемости функционирования судебных органов согласно устоявшейся международной практике показывается важность аспекта консолидирующей комплектации легислатур для стабилизации общества. ; Розглядається механізм функціонування виборчої системи з точки зору сприйняття її у якості інституту консолідації розколотого суспільства. Акцентується увага на необхідності забезпечення консенсусу не лише на стадії прийняття політичних рішень представницькими органами влади, але й на етапі їх формування. За допомогою міждисциплінарної аналогії з засадами оцінки прийнятності функціонування судових органів за усталеною міжнародної практикою показується важливість аспекту консолідуючої комплектації легіслатур для стабілізації суспільства.

The tendency towards the oligopolic holding of both built up area property and developable land is here seen to be due to the proper nature of these as such but also to that imposed particularity that both suffer from as a consequence of the exclusive nature of planning's land usage allocations. The will to overcome the bounds set upon any advanced capitalist development by such a monopoly-bred lack cannot ground itself upon a wholesale re-classification of land as apt for building nor on compulsory purchase nor yet upon a specific fining of he who ignores the limits set upon his activity. The so called reciprocating "social function of ownership", it is her held, must be seen as enjoying a twofold nature in which the added economic consideration that building upon it would give, is not a thing inherant as within basic property rights: a seperation thus exists as between this assumed ideological unity's two parts, as between the right to own it and the duty to transform it. It is thus necessary that the door be opened to any free market play as to the acquiring of building rights in so much as governmental choice, at any level, is to be made by an asking for free tenders and a taking up of such as offer the best prices, quality of work and are most in the public interest, this being, when all is said and done, the only valid yardstick herfor a properly understood development allowance utility. Having established this, its arguemental core, the paper goes on to structure solutions and draw the limits that such a liberating recasting of traditional property rights would stretch to, seeing such an initiative as being the unarguable first step towards ally breaking of the trammels put by nineteenth century thought upon ownership. ; La posición oligopolista de las propiedades en suelo urbano o urbanizable, además de por las características singulares del suelo, está garantizada por la limitación pública que los planes hacen de los terrenos con tal destino exclusivo. Las pretensiones de superar las trabas que esta monopolización de la oferta impone al desarrollo capitalista avanzado no pueden seguir basándose ni en masivas clasificaciones de nuevo suelo urbanizable, ni en expropiaciones, ni en las sanciones puntuales de todo infractor de un plazo. La llamada "función social de la propiedad" ha de entenderse como un binomio, en el que el contenido económico agregado con la facultad de edificar no es elemento inherente al contenido esencial del derecho de propiedad, discriminando la presunta unidad ideológica del derecho de propiedad del suelo compuesto por el derecho a poseerlo y el derecho a transformarlo en libre concurrencia empresarial. Por tanto ha de franquearse la entrada a la libre competencia de mercado para la adquisición del derecho a edificar, en tanto que facultad discrecional de la Administración, realizada mediante la libre concurrencia entre empresas que ofrezcan mejores calidades y precios y más contrapartidas al interés público, único creador del aprovechamiento. Se plantea esta idea central, estructurando las soluciones y alcance de esta reconfiguración liberalizadora del viejo derecho de propiedad, imprescindible para sacar al urbanismo de sus prejuicios decimonónicos.