The concept of “political system” is used in political science to systematically describe political phenomena and processes in their close relationship and interaction with the environment (other spheres of public life). The emergence of this concept, which united the structural, organizational-institutional and functional aspects of politics, is most often associated with the name of the American political scientist D. Easton, who introduced it into scientific circulation in the mid-twentieth century. He wanted to reflect politics as an independent sphere of society, to reveal the special nature of the connection between politics and the external environment (both within a single state and with other states).
The core of the political system, which determines its essence, structure and boundaries, is political (state) power. At the same time, it would be wrong to reduce the political system only to a system of political (primarily state) institutions and their relationships with each other. The concept of a political system covers all individuals and all institutions participating in the political process, as well as informal and non-governmental factors that influence the mechanism for identifying and posing problems, the development and implementation of government decisions (legislative, governmental, etc.).
The political system is a super complex system, which, as its constituent structural elements, includes a number of subsystems, which in turn are complex systems. Among them:
The institutional subsystem is a kind of frame, a supporting structure of the political system, consisting of various socio-political institutions and institutions (state, bodies of representative and direct democracy, political parties and socio-political movements, organized interest groups and pressure groups, means mass media, church, etc.).
The normative subsystem is a subsystem that, based on the political and legal norms and principles accepted in society, reflected in the constitution and other normative legal acts that have the generally binding force of law, regulates the formation and activities of political institutions and institutions, establishes the rules of the game in politics and etc., giving the political system orderliness and a focus on achieving and maintaining stability.
The communication subsystem is a set of relationships that arise in the process of functioning of the political system of society (including those related to the struggle for power and the use of power resources) both between political institutions and institutions within the system itself, and between the political system and other social systems (economy, social sphere etc.), as well as between the political system of a given country and the political systems of other states.
The political-ideological subsystem includes political consciousness and political culture. Everyday ideas, value orientations and attitudes of participants in political life, their emotions and prejudices, formed under the influence of specific socio-political practices, have a significant impact on individual and mass political behavior. They are the basis for the creation and transformation of socio-political institutions, as well as those changes that are made to political and legal norms, to the entire system of political relations.
The functional subsystem consists of a set of those roles and functions that are performed both by individual socio-political institutions and their groups (forms and orientation political activity, ways and methods of exercising power, means of influencing public life, etc.). Ultimately, we are talking about the aggregate dynamics of political life, causally determined by group interests, which takes the form of complex interaction (ranging from cooperation to open confrontation) of various institutional and social subjects of politics, within the framework of which the functioning and development (change, transformation, transformation) of political systems of society.
Subsystems of three levels of power and political-power relations
In the structure of the political system, it is also customary to distinguish subsystems of three levels of power and political-power relations - two institutional: the highest (megalevel, or megapower) and the middle, or intermediate (mesolevel, or mesopower), and the third - lower, mass (microlevel, or micropower ). At all these levels, these subsystems are in turn divided into parallel, usually competing structures: legal and shadow, ruling and opposition. Here we also distinguish between holders of power and executors, functionaries and ordinary members of parties, elite groups and ordinary citizens, etc.
At the institutional macrosystem level there are the highest authorities (parliament, government, supreme judicial bodies, etc.). At the same time, to determine the type of political system, the decisive factor is who has supremacy in this hierarchy of power (head of state, head of government, parliament, etc.).
A special arbitration role at this level is played by public control authorities, including from the media, political parties and organized interest groups (represented by national business associations and unions, unified national trade union centers, etc.). This also includes various forms of political opposition (parliamentary, party).
At the same mega-level, shadow, hidden political structures and actions of macro-power are concentrated: official and legally existing institutions with secret functions (security agencies) and completely clandestine institutions (intelligence and counterintelligence), as well as actions of legal institutions of the highest ranks hidden from “prying eyes” ( state and party), secret documents, directives, orders, instructions, etc.
Another series of legally existing structures that are part of the macro-level of power unofficially and informally form various kinds of elites and elite communities (clubs, parliamentary factions, friendly groups), pressure groups (parliamentary lobby, close circle of the presidential administration, think tanks under state and party leaders and etc.).
At the institutional middle or intermediate level (meso-power), the structure of the political system is similar in configuration to the structure of macro-power. It is formed by administrative apparatuses, bodies of elected and appointed power, which are directly merged with the structures of the upper level, but constitute its periphery. They are located in the political space between the highest echelons of state power and society, playing the role of a link between them (regional and municipal administration, representative institutions of various ranks, justice and law enforcement agencies, as well as governing bodies of political parties and trade unions, other public organizations and movements ).
At the same level, illegal structures of a non-political nature are formed (parallel “shadow” economy, black market, organization of the criminal world, various types of mafia groups), which tend to merge (merge) with legal structures and can have a serious influence on them or replace them , perform power functions (security, arbitration, etc.)
The micro-level of the political system is formed by the mass participation of social groups, layers and classes, citizens of society in political life: membership in mass political and non-political, but influential organizations, participation in mass political protests or support for the authorities, in responsible processes of its democratic organization (elections, referendums , plebiscites). At this level, political popular movements and civil initiatives are formed, political groups and parties are born, public opinion is formed, and the political culture of society is formed.
The space of microstructures is by no means limited to a certain lower, mass level. In principle, the entire society, all its citizens with their political views and forms of participation in joint political life are located in it. But due to the fact that the political roles they perform are organizationally and functionally different, this ranks them, i.e. places them according to different levels political system.
The above differentiation is universal in nature, that is, it can be traced in the political system of any society. Even the simplest political systems have structural differentiation and differ from developed systems only because the subsystems that make them up have different forms and levels of specialization, different volumes and nature of influence.
American political scientist D. Easton represents the political system as a self-regulating and self-developing organism with information input and output. At the entrance to the political system, numerous impulses arrive from the outside in the form of demands and support, which represent a constantly operating and decisive factor for the system; otherwise it will stop functioning due to “underload”. But at the same time, these impulses are potential sources of tension in the system and must be controlled.
Excessive demands on the system's ability to produce appropriate results (distribute value) can lead to its overload or potential stagnation. A high level of support is highly desirable for a system, but if, due to external reasons, it cannot meet the requirements, it will lose support and the foundations of self-preservation.
As for demands as a form of expression of the legitimacy of binding distribution on the part of subjects of power, they are divided into external, coming from the environment, and internal, coming from the system itself (its individual component subsystems and structures, especially peripheral ones). There are:
Requirements related to the needs of citizens to satisfy primary physiological needs, i.e., the distribution of goods and services;
Requirements related to meeting security needs (not only physical, but property, social, environmental, sanitary, etc.);
Requirements in the field of organization and functioning of state government institutions (reduction and rationalization of the state apparatus, fight against bureaucracy and corruption, etc.);
Requirements in the field of communication and information (transparency and openness of policy, comprehensive awareness of it on the part of those who develop it, etc.).
Being regulatory, distributive and communicative in content, these requirements can be both constructive and deconstructive, correspond to the capabilities of the system or lead to its quantitative or qualitative overload.
Quantitative overload with requirements refers to a shortage of resources, due to which the system is not able to adequately respond to them (i.e., satisfy them fully). The second qualitative overload of requirements is related to their complexity. Satisfy these requirements by the system (within its inherent traditional structures and mechanisms) is not capable in principle.
In order to avoid this kind of overload and the requirements imposed on the system correspond to its capabilities, the following is required:
1) so that the formulation and presentation of demands are not spontaneous (spontaneous) in nature, but are carried out primarily by organized groups - mass public organizations, as well as political parties; sent through official channels in compliance with all rules and procedures provided for by law;
2) so that the system has a certain supervisory and control mechanism installed, through which not only the requirements coming into it are recorded, but also their “natural selection”, filtering and ordering, hierarchization into problem blocks taking into account the degree of severity, relevance, complexity, etc.;
3) the system had a certain conversion mechanism that transforms ordered and aggregated requirements into products emanating from the system (i.e., specific decisions and actions in the form of a system response to challenges external environment). In addition to demands that tend to weaken the political system, the latter (i.e., the system) enjoys support that strengthens it. Support is a kind of support for the system, without which it cannot exist for a long time and sooner or later collapses.
Support covers all positions, all variants of observable behavior that are favorable to the system, and is grouped in the following areas:
Material support, which takes the form not only of timely and regular payment taxes and other taxes, but also voluntary donations, providing services to the system through voluntary labor, military service etc.;
Law-abiding, i.e. compliance with laws and compliance with directives and regulations of authorities, both in the center and locally;
Participation in political life (in elections and referendums, demonstrative political actions and discussions, membership in political parties and public organizations, etc.);
Attention to official information, respectful attitude (respect) for power and the institutions that represent it, as well as for state symbols (flag, anthem, coat of arms), etc. All these types of support are in one way or another related to civil
activity. At the same time, passive types of support are also widespread. Conformism, apoliticality and other forms of mass unconventional behavior objectively also “work” for the system, although subjectively in many political systems their bearers tend to interpret their non-participation in politics not as support for the system, but as a protest against it.
Output functions (conversion functions) express the methods and technologies of the political system’s response to the environment, that is, to the requests and demands entering it and take the form of specific decisions and political actions. These impulses emanating from the system are determined by the very essence and nature of political power as an organized force authorized by society to manage “common affairs” and ensure the “common good.” If decisions and actions meet the expectations and demands of numerous sectors of society, then support for the political system increases. If this is not the case, and the authorities, instead of responding to the aspirations of the people, are mainly concerned with their own well-being, then this creates a real threat of a partial or complete crisis of the political system.
Initial functions of political systems
The vital activity of the political system is manifested in the process of performing diverse functions, among which the following are identified as fundamental:
The function of goal setting, i.e. developing political goals, consolidating them in political documents and giving them a universal character, as well as ranking (hierarchization) according to time criteria, level of significance (strategic, tactical, priority, current, etc.);
Integrative function, i.e. ensuring the unification and integration of society based on the use of politics and power to express the will of the people through law, law, subordination, coercion, etc.;
Regulatory function, i.e. regulation of the regime of socio-political activity in society, the establishment of such rules and ways of behavior and activity of people and organizations that would ensure respect for common interests and the stability of social relations.
These fundamental functions are closely intertwined and interact with many others:
Rulemaking (development of laws that actually determine legal forms behavior of people and groups in society);
“rule enforcement” (putting laws into effect);
“monitoring compliance with the rules” (interpretation of laws and actions in order to determine the facts of their violation and impose appropriate punishment);
political socialization (political education, involvement of members of society in political activities), etc.
In general, the political system (in all the diversity of its structural elements and functions) acts as a means of social integration and containment of the destructive influence of social and other differences on the functioning of the social organism as a contradictory but unified whole.
Determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of political systems
The effectiveness and efficiency of any political system depends on many factors, both structural and functional. To be effective, a political system requires:
1. High level of development of political communication, i.e. various shapes relationships and interactions in the exchange and transmission of political information, both between individual structural units (subsystems) of the political system itself, and between the political system and the external environment. Being, by definition, a self-organizing and self-adjusting system aimed at managing and coordinating the efforts of a very large number of people, a political system is only effective and efficient when it has comprehensive information about the moods and demands of this multitude, as well as about its own state and movement.
It is necessary for information to continuously circulate, entangling the political system with numerous networks, various communication channels that would ensure the movement of information flows from authorities to citizens and back. The more and more diverse the information, the higher the quality of decisions made, the easier it is to anticipate and get ahead of events. And, conversely, the paucity of information that the system receives about the external environment and about itself sharply reduces its ability to effectively lead and manage. It gradually loses its power over historical circumstances, loses its legitimacy and the trust of citizens, and sooner or later is destroyed.
2. Strong structural differentiation. It is impossible to adequately and timely respond to demands addressed to the system from outside and inside, as well as to satisfy growing economic and social needs, without having autonomous and at the same time coordinated subsystems, “highly specialized” structures and apparatuses, a professionally trained administration, and an extensive infrastructure of political parties. , mass public organizations, civic bodies, etc.
Structural differentiation and specialization based on the principles of a clear division of spheres of influence and competence between various subsystems, as well as between their constituent institutions and institutions, makes it possible to keep in view the diversity of moods and expectations in society; promptly identify various kinds of “breakdowns” and malfunctions in the social body, engage in prevention and “preventive” treatment (i.e. at the inception stage) of various social diseases and ulcers. Prevent the interpersonal and intergroup conflicts that are inevitable for any system from developing into crises and confrontations that destroy society, etc.
3. System abilities, among which the following are of paramount importance:
a) the ability to innovate is the ability to adapt to new problems, to respond flexibly to new impulses and unforeseen situations. A system that is not able to generate innovations, to make timely changes that are objectively overdue, signs its own “death warrant”;
b) the ability to mobilize presupposes the ability of the political system to draw from the environment the necessary human and material resources in order to mobilize the population to achieve generally significant tasks, implement programs of social change and reform;
c) the ability to survive requires high level the development of a political system that ensures survival by the very fact that it is capable of spreading positions favorable to its preservation. It uses for these purposes the structures of political socialization (schools, universities, church, army, political parties), involving in public life those who want to be associated with it or those who, not being covered by the system, risk jeopardizing its political stability and form a revolutionary counter-elite;
d) ability for equality. According to the American political scientist L. Pye, the implementation of this ability should manifest itself:
In the active participation of the people in political activity, i.e. in the transition from a “culture of submission” to a “culture of participation” (this transition can occur either democratically - through the expansion of voting rights of citizens; or in the form of authoritarian mobilization);
In the universal character of laws that become general; in relation to them, everyone is in the same position, and they are applied to everyone without regard to differences in status positions and the privileges associated with them;
In recruiting for government positions not on the basis of inheritance or from any one social class or caste, but on merit, taking into account competence, education, abilities, etc.
It should be noted that the progress of all the above-mentioned variables of efficiency and effectiveness of political development does not necessarily occur synchronously. Historical experience indicates that states of tension often arise between them, and the tendency towards equality often leads not to an increase, but to a decrease in the capabilities of the political system. And in systems that have undergone modernization, the need to ensure economic development and integration on a national scale is often accompanied not by expansion, but by a significant limitation of popular representation in order to concentrate power in the hands of one party or a charismatic leader.
We must acknowledge Almond's merit in understanding the political system. Its result is the identification of three levels, equally inherent in all political systems:
First level. It represents the capabilities of the system. They reflect the power of the government over the population, the power of influence on the feelings, consciousness, will and activity of people in the interests of orientation towards the goals of the government. These include:
Extractive capability is the ability of a political system to extract and use resources for selected purposes. They determine human, labor and material resources, including: the activity and ability of people, organizational and moral support of people, financial sources and money.
- regulatory opportunity as the use of control over the behavior of people of interest and their groups, regulation of the activities of organizations;
- distributive opportunity as the ability to conduct the reproductive process and regulate the distribution of material and intangible values.
- responsive capability as the ability of a system to respond to “input requirements”, the formation of satisfying policies recognized by influential interest groups.
- symbolizing the opportunity as the ability of the system to pick up and develop popular and symbolic beliefs, views, myths, develop and create from them bright, intelligible images, appeals and slogans, and on this basis manipulate the population in order to ensure the necessary level of legitimacy of power.
Most political systems are regulative and extractive in nature. Totalitarian systems act by suppressing the demands of society, refuse to respond to them, they do not recognize the demands of the external environment, but they develop their symbolizing capabilities well.
The practice of political activity has led democratic systems to the formation of “outputs” of regulation, extraction and distribution, based on the composition and essence of the demands of groups at the “input”. This order reveals democracy as a higher responsive ability, which, according to political scientists, creates greater efficiency of the system - its ability to shape the result: create and place values.
At the second level of functioning, what is happening inside the system is revealed and has a conversion process as a way of transforming incoming factors into outgoing ones. The conversion process of different political systems is analyzed and compared according to the six main functions of Almond's scheme. This:
Formation of requirements (articulation of interests);
- procedure for establishing and compiling requirements into alternative action programs (aggregation of interests);
- formation of norms (rule-making);
- translation of norms into practice (implementation of norms);
- control and regulation (control over norms);
- the relationship between regulatory actions within the system and during the interaction of the system with the environment (communication).
At the third level there are models and adaptations: the process of socialization and recruitment - the emergence of new roles and the entry of previously unknown people into political life.
- - - - - - - -
One side is theory, the other is life, together - testing political life through theory. One side is the generation of abstract entry requirements, the other is the formation of a group of interests, the third is the feeling of consequences in the actions of “output” of system decisions. Each participant in the political field always generates certain demands. For the most part, they are based on certain needs and related interests. For many, they allow themselves to be included in the composition of participants in one of the political actions or in some interest group. Receive political, economic or legal preferences through it and use them at your discretion. Anyone who manages to prove his loyalty to the political guidelines of a group or party can take a key position in the hierarchy of available positions. Much less often, a new participant manages to become an organizer of the political activities of a separate party, although Russian history knows enough examples, most of which were unable to leave behind any history other than the intention or fact of registration with the Ministry of Justice. This is also a greater achievement, but it can usually be of significance for personal history. When responding to such activity at the entrance, the system can only make personnel decisions: involve the initiator in some activity, admit him to the political composition, or close his entrance.
A completely different plan of political activity provides the presentation of new ideas and the introduction of their meanings into political life. It is impossible to pretend to be serious, to imitate such activity: the rejection will be immediate and painful for the initiator, but it will be the will of the entire political field. Another case is the emergence of previously unknown ideas. The iron rule for dealing with them is to be surrounded by silence. Somehow it takes time to understand. Usually the political field waits for an authoritative opinion, then, as a rule, it is divided into harsh criticism and some solidary support. This is all a reward for many years of torment and one’s own trials. This is the perspective of an innovator in the political field. There are no political subsidies here. This state gives the innovator of the political process the right and opportunity to go his own way and approve new ideas, rules and balance of power for the political field. And only he can make such a decision, as well as take on the burden of the hardest work. It continues.
THEORY OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS
1.
2.
3. Functions of the political system
1. Theoretical models of the political system. The theory of political systems was created in the 50s, primarily through the efforts of American political scientists D. Easton, G. Almond, R. Dahl, K. Deutsch and others. In a speech at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1962, its then president G. Almond contrasted the theory of systems with the theory of separation of powers, noting that the “systems paradigm” is replacing “the dominant one in the 18th-19th centuries.” in political science, the paradigm of separation of powers.”
One of the reasons for the emergence and spread of the theory of political systems at this time was the general dissatisfaction with the methods used political analysis. Behaviorist approaches made it possible to analyze political phenomena only in separate, often rather insignificant fragments. A fully realized need for a generalizing theory has emerged. And it appeared, and its creators generally managed to avoid both the over-factualism of the “empiricists,” “who cannot see the forest for the trees,” and the large losses of information in the abstract philosophical conclusions of the “theorists.”
The concept was based on the ideas of a systems approach borrowed from economics, sociology and cybernetics. The initial postulates of general systems theory are simple. Any system object must meet some essential rules of consistency, namely: consist of several interconnected elements, have relative isolation from other objects, i.e. a certain autonomy, and finally, to have a minimum internal integrity (this means that the whole is not reducible to the sum of its elements). The political sphere has these elementary qualities.
The essence of system analysis (or structural functionalism) is the identification of the structure of a system object and the subsequent study of the functions performed by its elements. Thus, the problem of studying politics as a system was solved. By focusing on the relationships between the whole (the system) and its parts, adherents of systems analysis also examine how specific components of the system influence each other and the system as a whole.
The model for the creators of the theory was the concept of a “social system” T. Parsons, who considered systems of human action at any level in terms of functional subsystems specialized in solving their specific problems. Thus, at the level of the social system, the adaptation function is provided by the economic subsystem, the integration function is provided by legal institutions and customs, the structure reproduction function, which, according to Parsons, constitutes the “anatomy” of society - a system of beliefs, morality and institutions of socialization (family, education system, etc.) .d.), goal achievement function - political subsystem. Each of the subsystems of society, having the property of openness, depends on the results of the activities of the others. At the same time, mutual exchange in complex systems is carried out not directly, but with the help of “symbolic intermediaries”, which at the level of the social system are: money, influence, value commitments and power. Power, first of all, is a “generalized intermediary” in the political subsystem, while money is a “generalized intermediary” of the economic process, etc.
Thus, between the political and economic systems there is an exchange of power and money, political decisions and the consumption of monetary resources (for example, investments). Financial resources are invested, in particular, in political programs, which in itself is an entry factor. In turn, the political system has an input into the economic one, through the establishment of a legal framework for the process of wealth production. The main link of the social system is the political system, since it is in it that goal setting (specification) occurs and it plays a key role in the process of achieving significant goals. In addition, it is the political system that has the function of integrating members of society into power relations.
The theory of political systems also arose as an alternative to the traditional institutional approach in political science and claimed not only to generalize the vast empirical material obtained by behaviorists, but also to transform political science into a more precise discipline.
“The concept of “political system,” writes K. von Beyme”, - appeared in order to fill the “theoretical vacuum” that the concept of “state” left. The term is free of the legal connotations associated with the state and is more easily defined in terms of observable behavior. “The conceptual breadth of the term makes it a useful tool of analysis in the study of informal political structures, whereas “governance” is often closely identified with formal institutions.”
As a result, the categories of the state, as well as the legal and institutional apparatus used in traditional political science, were replaced by the political system. “The place of power was taken by function, the place of institution by role, the place of institution by structure” ( R.Chilcot). These categories were needed, in particular, to show that all political systems have a certain set of common characteristics
Considering the most important property of a political system to be the ability to maintain its qualitative certainty when the structure and functions of elements change, or, in other words, its stability, D. Easton puts forward as a priority the analysis of the conditions necessary to maintain the stability of the system and its survival (it is not accidental that structural -functional analysis is called “macrosociology of social stability”). For this purpose, in his opinion, four main categories should be considered: “political system”, “surrounding social environment”, “reaction” and “feedback”. Since these are the categories that are associated with “... the mobilization of resources and the development of decisions aimed at achieving the goals facing society.”
D. Easton considers interaction to be the unit of study of the political system. He writes: “In a broader context, the study of political life... can be described as the totality of social interactions between individuals and groups. Interaction is the basic unit of analysis. What, first of all, distinguishes political interactions from all other types of social interactions is that they are oriented toward the authoritarian distribution of values in society.” Hence, the political system is interpreted as a set of interactions carried out by individuals and groups, within the limits of their recognized roles, interactions aimed at the authoritarian distribution of values in society. Power in this interpretation of the political system acts as its main attribute. In an effort to emphasize the authoritative nature of the political system and its focus on making authoritarian decisions, some followers of D. Easton even call the political system a “decision-making machine.”
However, this interpretation of the political system is not the only one. Yes, from the point of view R. Dahl can be defined as a political system any stable type of human relations, which includes as its main components - power, norms and rules, authority. Thus, political systems may differ in the level of political institutionalization and political participation. A political system can be considered that intragroup structure that makes decisions in subsocietal groups (i.e. groups below the level of society as a whole), such as a family, church, trade union or commercial organization. At the same time, notes R. Dahl, not a single association of people is political in all aspects. The political system, consisting of authorized representatives of the population of a given country and its government, is a state. In turn, we can talk about an international political system with a geographical organization and national subsystems. This understanding of the political system can be called expansive, but it is not opposed to Easton’s approach.
In general, in US political science alone there are more than twenty definitions of the political system, but they are not fundamentally different from each other, being largely complementary.
Being an “open”, hierarchical, self-regulating, dynamically non-equilibrium system of behavior, the political system is influenced by the environment. With the help of self-regulation mechanisms, it develops responses, adapting to external conditions. Through these mechanisms, the political system regulates its behavior, transforms and changes its internal structure (structure refers to the standardization of interactions) or changes the functions of structural elements. “Self-sufficiency (of a system) in relation to the environment means the stability of mutual exchange relations in the interests of its own functioning and the ability to control interchange in the interests of its own functioning. This control can range from the ability to prevent or “stop” some violations, to the ability to form relationships with the environment in a favorable way,” noted T. Parsons.
Thus, the constant search for dynamic stability is the norm of functioning of the political system. In order to cope with stressful situations arising in the political system, it must have, in the opinion of M. Kaplan, “the ability to weaken stresses emanating from the environment, the ability to reorganize itself and the external environment in such a way as to put an end to the emergence of stresses in general or, at least, their appearance in previous forms,” which ensures a certain “independence” of the system from constant fluctuations in external conditions. If it does not have such “system maintenance capabilities” and does not take measures to prevent the destructive influence of the environment, and if the tensions within it are so great that the authorities cannot implement their decisions as binding, then the political system may be destroyed.
Thus, the longevity of any political system depends on the ability to change and adapt to the environment, i.e. restore dynamic equilibrium. Moreover, the stability of one or another of them over any period of time does not indicate the absence of changes, but the presence of a systemic ability for non-violent changes in goals and leadership. According to S. Huntington, in the context of increasing political participation, in order to maintain political stability, it is necessary to increase the complexity, autonomy, adaptability and coherence of the political institutions of society.
In addition to “maintenance of the system,” the concept of “political stability” includes: civil order, legitimacy and effectiveness of the system. In any society, satisfied groups prefer maintaining the political “status quo” or non-violent changes, while dissatisfied groups are more inclined to resort to violent methods. If individual citizens and public groups are not integrated into the decision-making process, and the policy does not have support, cooperation and solidarity with elements of society, then it cannot be said that this system is open in nature and structure. When an agent of political space does not have a voice in the system and cannot satisfy his vital interests, he prefers the destruction of this system.
The exchange and interaction of the political system with the social environment is carried out according to the principle of “input” - “output” (concepts borrowed from cybernetics). "Input" is any event that is external to the system and affects it in any way. "Output" represents the response of the political system to this influence in the form of political decisions, statements, laws, various events, symbolic acts, etc.
“Input” comes either in the form of “demands” or “support.” A demand is an opinion addressed to authorities regarding the desirable or undesirable distribution of values in society. We are talking about such values as: security, individual independence, political participation, consumer benefits, status and prestige, equality, etc. Thus, D. Easton, citing various definitions of the political system, figuratively compared it with a giant factory in which raw materials ( needs) are processed into primary material called requirements, which have two main forms. The first are the system’s own requirements for the environment, which result in decisions of government authorities. The second are demands demonstrating the sentiments of groups of people entering the political system with their needs.
However, all this does not mean that the political system must satisfy all demands addressed to it, especially since this is practically impossible. The political system can act quite independently when making decisions, choose between certain demands, and resolve certain issues at its own discretion.
In such cases, she turns to the so-called “support reserve”. Where support is such a political relationship when “A acts on the side of B, or orients himself favorably towards B, where A are people, and B is a political system as a certain interconnected and interacting set of political institutions and political leaders pursuing appropriate political goals and guided by certain political attitudes and values" (D. Easton). Support comes in two forms: internal support (or potential), expressed in sentiments of commitment to a given political system, tolerance, patriotism, etc., and external support, which involves not only acceptance values of this system, but also practical actions on its side. It is support that ensures the stability of government bodies that transform environmental requirements into appropriate political decisions, and also creates the necessary preconditions for the use of means and methods by which these transformations are carried out.
Since it is support that ensures the normal functioning of the political system, each system strives to create and introduce into the consciousness of its citizens through the channels of political socialization, the so-called “working values”, i.e. an ideology that strengthens its legitimacy. It is no coincidence that in the Western tradition, legitimacy is usually defined, first of all, as “the ability of a system to generate and maintain the people’s belief that its political institutions are in the best possible to a greater extent meet the interests of this society" ( S. Lipset).
The process of inputting requirements and support occurs through two main stages: articulation and aggregation of interests. Articulation is the process of awareness and formation of interests by individuals and small groups. Aggregation is already a generalization and coordination of closely articulated interests, transferring them to the level of programs, political declarations, draft laws, this is an adjustment of the current policy and the proposal of its alternatives. The main subject of articulation are interest groups.
Aggregation is one of the goals of the activities of political parties, mass media and the state. On the other side is the “output”, that which “measures the production” of the political system. This is government policy, i.e. decrees of the head of state and government resolutions, laws adopted by parliament, court decisions. It is also the production of symbols, signs and messages that also address the environment. These outgoings are thus a response to the demands of the environment. social environment, which are thereby satisfied, rejected, contested or partially fulfilled. Finally, government decisions, affecting the environment, inevitably give rise to new demands and support. And this is the “feedback” of the system.
2. Structure of the political system. Since the political system is a complex, hierarchical formation, the question inevitably arises about its subsystems and structural elements. Answering it, G. Almond, in particular, identifies as such subsystems “... Three broad classes of objects: 1) specific roles and structures, such as legislative and executive bodies or bureaucracies; 2) role bearers, such as individual monarchs, legislators and administrators; 3) specific public events, decisions or execution of decisions.”
These structures, vehicles and decisions can in turn be classified in more detail depending on whether they are included in the political process or "input", or in the administrative process or "output". Moreover, analyzing the internal structure of the political system, G. Almond brings to the fore not so much the structures as the connections between them, their interactions, and the roles they perform in the political system. Typically, within the framework of a political system, the following three subsystems are distinguished:
Institutional (set of political institutions);
Information and communication (a set of communications);
Normative and regulatory (a set of moral, legal and political norms).
The dynamic characteristics of the political system are given through the concept of “political process”. Descriptions of the political process in Western political science, as a rule, are highly formalized, since they must meet two main requirements: to be operational and verifiable, in order to make possible the transition from a meaningful description of the process to the creation of a formal model (scheme) of the process in a mathematical or tabular form. - graphic form.
Hence, the political process is “the process of transforming information, transferring it from “input” to “output” (D. Easton).
Thus, we are talking practically about reducing the political process to the “transmission of meanings that are significant for the functioning of the political system,” that is, to political communication. K. Deutsch even expressed the opinion that political communication could become the focus of political science, then political systems would be interpreted as extensive communication networks. In the book “Nerves of Control: Models of Political Communication and Control,” he proposes an information-cybernetic model of the political system, within which he identifies four blocks associated with various phases of information and communication flows:
Receiving and selecting information at the “input” of the system (through external and internal receptors);
Processing and evaluation of information;
Making decisions;
Implementation of decisions and feedback from the “output” of the system to the “input”.
In the first phase the political system receives information through foreign policy and domestic policy “receptors”, which include information services (public and private), research centers public opinion etc. In this block, selection, systematization and primary analysis of incoming data take place.
Second phase ensures further processing of already selected information, which enters the “memory and values” block, where, on the one hand, it is compared with existing data, and on the other, evaluated through the prism of norms, stereotypes and values prevailing in a given political system.
In the third phase the government, as a “decision-making center,” makes appropriate decisions to regulate the current state of the system. The decision is made after receiving a final assessment of the degree of compliance with the current political situation, the main priorities and goals of the political system.
Fourth phase assumes that the so-called “effectors” (executive bodies - domestic and foreign policy) implement the decisions made by the government. At the same time, the results of the activity of “effectors” generate at the “output” of the system new information(domestic and foreign policy), which through “feedback” again reaches the “input” and brings the entire system to a new cycle of functioning.
K. Deutsch identifies three main types of communications carried out in the political system:
Personal informal communications, for example, personal contacts of a candidate for deputy with voters in a relaxed atmosphere;
Communications through organizations and pressure groups, for example when contact with the government is carried out through political parties, trade unions, etc.;
Communications through media (print and electronic).
However, this interpretation of the political system was criticized for “the mechanical transfer of terminology, operating principles and the most important provisions of cybernetics into the sphere of politics” ( R.Kan).
The interpretation proposed by G. Almond has become generally accepted: “When speaking about the political process, or input, we mean the flow of demands from society to the state and the conversion of these demands into authoritative political measures. The structures involved primarily in the entry process include political parties, interest groups and means of communication." At the same time, "exit" is interpreted in Western political science as an "administrative process", when speaking about it they mean "... the process of implementation or imposing authoritative political decisions. The structures primarily involved in this process include bureaucracies and courts.”
So, the political process consists of the following main cycles:
Receipt of information from the environment into the receptors of the political system;
Its circulation in the system;
Transformation of the political system;
Based on the foregoing, we can define the political process as the total activity of all actors in political relations associated with the formation, change, transformation and functioning of the political system.
3. Functions of the political system Since any political system strives for self-preservation and adaptation to the requirements of its environment, adherents of structural functionalism argue that it is possible to identify a finite number of processes through which these goals will become feasible. In their opinion, in all political systems of the past and present the same “functions” were provided; only the composition and complexity of state and other political structures changed. It was on this basis that a general theory of the functions of the political system arose. For example, at work G. Almond And B. Powell“Comparative politics” functions aimed at self-reproduction of the system and its adaptation to the environment are divided into three groups:
I. Conversion functions. Their goal is to ensure that demands and support are translated into political decisions or actions. G. Almond and B. Powell identify six functions here. Two of them are carried out at the “input” level and should ensure the regulation of everything that feeds the political system: we are talking about identifying interests and demands and their harmonization.
Three other functions are at the “output”, these are: a) development of mandatory rules; b) implementing them; c) judicial function.
The sixth function - political connection/communication (movement or containment of information, transmission of meanings significant for the functioning of the political system) concerns both the “input” and “output” of the system.
2 . Adaptation function. The pressure exerted on the political system by demands of all kinds creates a constant factor of imbalance. This overload is counteracted by two functions of the system: a) the recruitment of specialized political personnel who receive demands and carry out their optimal processing; b) the function of political socialization, i.e. the spread of a political culture compatible with the requirements of survival and adaptation of the system to its environment.
3. Capabilities. They concern the relationship between the political system and its environment: a) the ability to mobilize material and human resources for the normal functioning of the system; b) ability to regulate - i.e. establish control over people located in the territory controlled by the system; c) the ability to distribute, i.e. provision of services, status, remuneration, etc.; d) the ability to support symbolism - i.e. carrying out actions to give something legal force, celebrating heroic dates or events related to public values that contribute to achieving agreement; e) ability to listen, i.e. the ability to accept demands before they create serious tension in society.
The idea that any political system necessarily fulfills some basic tasks has made it possible to advance to a very important stage in the development of grounds on which comparable elements would be distinguished in fundamentally different political systems. According to G. Almond, the ideal separation of functions is unattainable in practice. Power sectors, political parties, interest groups, etc. almost inevitably perform not one, but several functions. “Any political structure, no matter how highly specialized it may be, is multifunctional.”
There is no doubt that the more a political system develops, the more differentiated it becomes; the specialization of its structures will continue until each function is performed by the corresponding social institution. Thus, in modern democratic specialized systems, there are structures, notes G. Almond, “whose functions are clearly defined and which strive to play a regulatory role in the performance of this function within the political system as a whole.” In addition, systems with more developed structural specialization have, as a rule, greater resources (finance, information, technical personnel, complex organizational structures), effective political organizations, as well as mass value orientations necessary to achieve major social change. Conversely, less specialized systems lack these resources to effectively adapt to shocks that disturb the system's equilibrium ( Ch.F.Endrain).
Therefore, one of the tasks of scientific analysis is to show how various specialized political institutions - bodies executive power, parliaments, bureaucracies, courts - and show what the functions that could be performed by similar structures in different historical, cultural and systemic contexts are.
The structural-functional approach also aroused great interest among political scientists because it seemed to make it possible to model political relations, making it possible to “unfold” the political situation in the direction opposite to the real flow of time, that is, from effect to cause, which led to the clarification of factors and actions that contributed to political crises and conflicts. It was assumed that the models obtained as a result of such testing could be used to “unfold” the situation in the future and detect crisis factors in advance. It seemed that, finally, a means had been found that would allow political science to fully perform its predictive function.
In addition to enormous interest, the ideas of systemic analysis of politics also gave rise to great disappointments, for example, researchers were faced with four “damned” problems: subjectivity, multidimensionality, uncertainty and vagueness of criteria for political behavior. Indeed, the political process involves living people with their own aspirations, expectations, stereotypes and prejudices, who are either actively involved in relations with the state and other political institutions, or, for reasons that are not always clear, fall into apathy and ignore their politically significant interests. Therefore, the political process is not predictable and does not carry any predetermination in the development of political events. This was the price that had to be paid for applying a systematic approach (as it turned out not to be universal) to understanding political realities.
In addition, according to this theory, the place of an individual, group or institution in the political system, on the one hand, and the functions they perform, on the other, determine their behavioral attitudes, orientations and goals of activity. Therefore, the study of roles and their changes within a given political system allows us to reveal the decision-making process, that is, to understand the mechanism of functioning of political power in a given society. Thus, the whole - the system - dominates the individual. Hence, in particular, the not unfounded accusations of the lack of subjectivity of the political process.
There is no doubt that in the political process the structural, value and behavioral aspects are closely interrelated. “The motives of individual people’s behavior, the specifics of their perception of what is happening, their individual attitudes and mode of action become clear through the study of the micropolitical aspects of the policy process. Individuals manage structures, give one or another interpretation of cultural values and, thus, can make changes to macropolitical components. Structural and cultural aspects not only constrain individual actions, but also enable them to make decisions that lead to systemic change.”
The most serious criticism of structural functionalism has been that it represents a “macrosociology of political stability.” Interpretations of the processes of change here come down to either the fact that the political system returns, after a period of instability, to its previous state, or that some new equilibrium is being established. “In no case can we consider Easton’s theory a theory of political change,” he wrote, in particular Thomas Thorson, - a theory that would provide answers to questions about why certain specific political changes occur.” Viewing this as a manifestation of an initially ideological, conservative attitude, critics argued that it was impossible to describe and analyze conflicts and political transitions within the framework of structural functionalism. Sociologist Don Martindale summarized the shortcomings of structural functionalism as follows: conservative ideological bias and preference for the status quo; lack of methodological clarity; overemphasis on the role of closed systems in social life; learning disability social change.
However, within the framework of structural-functional analysis, clear successes have been achieved. Adherents of this approach introduced into political science a rich, rigorous, and politically neutral language of systems analysis. The concept of “political system” made it possible to more clearly delineate the boundaries of political power and highlight power relations at all levels. Structural functionalism made it possible to include the countries of the “Third World” in the field of comparative political analysis, which led, in particular, to the advancement of theories of political modernization in political science (since the 60s), and this, in turn, made it possible to implement a breakthrough in the study of newly independent states. The turn to the study of informal mechanisms for making political decisions and the functioning of the state was also very important.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Being an independent organism, the political system has its own capabilities, or relatively speaking, abilities. American political scientists D. Easton and G. Almond name four main abilities:
1) regulatory, relating to the management of the behavior of groups and individuals (maintenance of norms, action of administration, etc.);
2) extraction, associated with the extraction of economic and other resources necessary for its functioning;
3) distributive - the ability to distribute and redistribute resources, goods, services, insignia, etc.;
4) reactive, associated with the need to constantly respond to the demands of the social environment and adapt to its changes. P. Sharon quite rightly adds a fifth, no less significant, and perhaps the most important ability: self-regulation, which characterizes internal, self-directed controllability.
Abilities are realized in the functions of the political system, or otherwise, in its main types of activity. The latter are determined by the role that the political system is objectively called upon to play in society. Namely: to ensure the existence of a given society as a single self-governing social organism.
The functional approach to the analysis of a political system includes three levels: consideration of the interaction of the system with society as a whole" in its internal functioning and in its preservation and adaptation. Of course, they are interrelated, moreover, they interpenetrate in real life rather represent aspects (sides) various types activities of political institutions.
Functions of the political system, addressed to a greater extent to other subsystems of society:
First. Ensuring political power of a certain social group or the majority of members of a given society or country. The political system is an institutional (ordered, fixed by norms) form of existence of power. Through the institutions that form the political system, the legitimation of power is carried out, the monopoly on the publication of laws of a generally binding nature and the use of coercion for their implementation is realized. A political system, according to G. Almond’s definition, is a legitimate, order-maintaining or transforming system in society.
The political system establishes and implements certain forms and methods of government: violent and non-violent, democratic and authoritarian. One or another subordination and coordination of political institutions is used.
The institutionalization of the political system is carried out through the Constitution - a set of legally approved models of institutions, laws and political and legal practice.
Second. The political system is a governing system. It regulates social relations, manages various spheres of people’s life in the interests of certain social groups or the majority of the population. The scope of management functions, scale, forms and methods of management activities of political institutions depend on the type of social systems. Thus, the sphere of influence of political institutions in modern developed capitalist countries on the economy is much narrower than in countries with a socialist orientation.
This feature is explained by two circumstances. On a positive note: socialism ideally presupposes the conscious creativity of the masses. Politics as a form of organizing mass activity is intended here to become the most important factor historical progress. In fact, the negative role of politics and its institutions in countries that have made the socialist choice has become excessive and deformed. Political institutions largely absorbed society, since its social organizations were not sufficiently developed and lost their roles to state structures.
The action of the political system as a manager includes setting goals and developing political projects of activity on their basis social institutions. This function, called political goal-setting, cannot be absolute. The process of social life for all historical conditions and systems cannot be globally targeted. The conscious is always combined with the elemental. The dramatic pages of the development of our country refute the stereotypical characterization of Soviet history, propagated for many years, only as a practical embodiment scientific theory Marxism-Leninism.
Third. The political system performs an integrative function in society: it ensures a certain unity of all social groups and segments of the population, as this is necessary to maintain the status quo of society. It unites these social groups and layers around common socio-political goals and values, which makes it possible to realize both the interests of the system as a whole and the interests of individual groups. The political system, writes P. Sharan, is a system of interaction found in all independent societies, which performs the function of their integration and adaptation through the use or threat of use of more or less legitimate coercion.
Fourth. One of the most important functions of the political system is the creation of the necessary political conditions for the functioning and progress of the economy (legal consolidation of forms of ownership of the means of production, ensuring a single economic space, implementing tax policy, regulating the financial system, etc.).
Fifth, the protection of a given society and its members from various kinds of destructive (internal and external) influences. We are talking about protection from destructive elements, including criminal groups that are acquiring an international character in our time, from external aggressions (military, economic, ideological, informational), and finally, from environmental disaster.
In a word, the political system implements the function of goal setting and goal achievement, ensures order in society, keeps under control the processes of social tension in relations between people, ensures its unity, creates conditions for security (physical, legal, professional and others), distributes material and spiritual values ( directly or indirectly) between members of society, mobilizes resources to meet social needs.
The transition to the next one - the internal level of functional analysis of the system - is a consideration of the types of its activities associated with the implementation of the noted functions. R. Almond and with him R.-J. Schwarzenberg and P. Sharan combine them into a group of conversion functions (transforming). We are talking about those transformative actions that are carried out by institutions at the “input” and “output” of the system:
a) articulation and aggregation of interests, which means the process of presenting, expressing and generalizing social interests in the development of political decisions;
b) rule-making (development of norms and rules);
c) application of rules and regulations;
d) monitoring compliance with norms and rules;
e) political communication.
The last three functions are the sphere of activity of government institutions. Function "d" is largely implemented by non-governmental organizations, including parties.
As for the functional level of preservation and adaptation of the system, this includes the following activities:
a) for the training and selection of personnel, for the formation of an elite called upon to fulfill the main political roles;
b) on the implementation of political socialization, i.e. the process of introducing political culture into the consciousness and behavior of individuals and masses.
The concept of “political system” is voluminous in content. A political system can be defined as a set of political institutions, social structures, norms and values, their interactions, in which political power and political influence is exercised.
A political system is a set of state, political and public organizations, forms and interactions between them, through which the implementation of generally significant interests is carried out using political power.
Theory of the political system.
Topic 5. The political system of society and the problem of power.
1. Theory of the political system.
2. Structure and functions of the political system.
3. Types of political system.
4. Soviet-type political system.
The need to create a holistic understanding of the processes in the political sphere, its relationships with the outside world led to development of a systematic approach in political science.
The term “political system” was introduced into political science in the 50-60s. XX century American political scientist D. Easton, who created the theory of the political system. Then this theory was developed in the works of G. Almond, W. Mitchell, K. Deutsch. etc. This was due to the need to consider politics as a system. This concept was intended to reflect 2 points: 1) the integrity of politics as an independent sphere of society, representing a set of interacting elements (state parties, leaders, law...); 2) the nature of the connection between politics and the external environment (economics,..). The concept of a political system can help identify the factors that ensure the stability and development of society, and reveal the mechanism for coordinating the interests of various groups.
Therefore, the political system includes not only political institutions involved in politics (state, parties, leaders, etc.), but also economic, social, cultural institutions, traditions and values, norms that have political significance and influence the political process. The purpose of all these political and social institutions is to distribute resources (economic, monetary, material, technological, etc.) and encourage the population to accept this distribution as mandatory for everyone.
Previously, politics was reduced to activities government agencies, highlighting them as the main subjects of power relations. Up to a certain point, this explanation reflected reality. However, the processes of development of civil society, the emergence of a free individual with his rights and freedoms led to the fact that the citizen began not only to obey, but also to influence the state through political organizations. Power has ceased to be a monopoly (prerogative) of the state, and power relations have become complex, because Non-governmental organizations began to participate in them. The complexity of power relations led to a revision of the then dominant institutional and behavioral approaches to explaining politics. Politics had to solve a more complex problem: the search for universal patterns and mechanisms that would provide society with stability and survival in an unfavorable external environment.
Systems theory originated in biology in the 1920s.
The concept of “system” was introduced into scientific circulation by a German biologist L. von Bertalanffy(1901-1972). He studied the cell as a “set of interdependent elements,” that is, as a system connected with the external environment. These elements are so interconnected that if you change even one element of the system, then all the others, the whole set, will change. The system develops due to the fact that it responds to signals from the outside and to the requirements of its internal elements.
The concept of “system” was transferred to society for consideration T. Parsons. He political system considers as specific element of the social system. That. Talcott, Parsons views society as a social system consisting of four subsystems that interact - economic, political, social and spiritual. Each of the subsystems performs its functions, responds to demands that come from within or from the outside, and together they ensure the functioning of society as a whole. Defining collective goals, mobilizing resources to achieve them, making decisions constitute the functions political subsystem. Social subsystem ensures the maintenance of an established way of life, transmits to new members of society norms, traditions, customs, values (which constitute the motivational structure of the individual.) And, finally, the integration of society, the establishment and preservation of ties of solidarity between its elements is carried out spiritual subsystem.
However, T. Parsons’ model is too abstract to explain all processes in the political sphere; it does not include cases of conflicts and tensions. Nevertheless, Parsons' theoretical model has had a significant influence on research in sociology and political science.
Theory of the political system by D. Easton. (systemic analysis)
Systems theory introduced into political science by an American political scientist D. Easton, who defined politics as “the volitional distribution of values.” ( Easton's main contribution to political science is the application of methods system analysis for the study of political systems, as well as the study of problems of political socialization). Hence, politic system, according to D. Eastonues set of political interactions in a given society . Its main purpose consists of the distribution of resources and values. The systematic approach made it possible to more clearly define the place of politics in the life of society and identify the mechanism of social changes in it.
So with one side,politics stands as an independent sphere, the main purpose of which – resource allocation , and on the other hand, policy There is part of society, it must respond to impulses entering the system, prevent conflicts arising over the distribution of values between individuals and groups. That. a political system can exist with the ability to respond to impulses coming from the external environment and adapt to external operating conditions.
The mechanism of functioning of the political system.
The exchange of resources and interaction of the political system with the external environment is carried out according to the principle "entrance" And "exit».
"Entrance"- these are the ways
influence of the external environment on the political system.
"Exit"- this is a response, (reverse impact) of the system on the external environment, appearing in the form of decisions developed by the political system and its institutions.
D. Easton distinguishes 2 input types: requirement and support . Requirement can be defined as an appeal to authorities regarding the distribution of values and resources in society. For example, workers’ demands for an increase in the minimum wage. or teachers' demands for increased funding for education. Demands tend to weaken the political system. They are a consequence of the inattention of power structures to the changing interests and needs of social groups.
Support, on the contrary, means strengthening the entire system, and is an expression of a devoted, benevolent attitude towards the regime. Forms of manifestation of support can be considered the correct payment of taxes, fulfillment of military duty, respect for government institutions, and devotion to the ruling leadership.
As a result, the impact on "entrance" cause a reaction to "exit" On "exit"appear political decisions And political action. They come in the form of new laws, policy statements, court decisions, subsidies, etc.
(Consequently, the political system and the external environment are deeply interconnected).
In turn, decisions and actions influence the environment, resulting in new requirements. " Entrance and exit"systems constantly influence each other. This continuous cycle is called "feedback loop" . In political life Feedback is of fundamental importance to check the correctness of decisions made, correcting them, eliminating errors, organizing support. Feedback is also important for possible reorientation, departure from a given direction and selection of new goals and ways to achieve them.
Politic system, ignoring feedback, is ineffective because it fails to gauge the level of support, mobilize resources and organize collective action in accordance with public goals. Eventually it turns out political crisis And loss of political stability.
That. the political process shows how social demands arise, how they turn into generally significant problems, and then into the subject of action by political institutions aimed at shaping public policy and the desired solution to problems. A systems approach helps to understand the mechanism for the formation of new political strategies, the role and interaction of various elements of the system in the political process.
However, D. Easton focused on interaction with the external environment And ignored internal structure of the hollow system which helps maintain balance in society.
Theory of the political system by G. Almond. (functional analysis P.S.)
An American political scientist proposed a different approach to the analysis of political interactions G. Almond.(specialist in general theoretical and comparative political science). He assumed that the ability of a political system to carry out transformations and maintain stability depends on the functions and roles of political institutions. Almond conducted comparative analysis different political systems, with the aim of identifying the main functions that contributed to effective social development. Comparative analysis of P.S. implied a transition from the study of formal institutions to the consideration of specific manifestations of political behavior. Based on this, G. Almond and G. Powell determined political system How a set of roles and their interactions carried out not only by government institutions, but also by all structures of society. The political system must perform three groups of functions: Functions of interaction with the external environment ;
Interconnection functions within political sphere;
· Functions that ensure system preservation and adaptation.
Communicative theory of the political system by K. Deutsch.
The transition of developed countries to information technology, introduction of computer technology, allowed us to consider the political system How mechanical model. He was the first to liken the political system cybernetic machine American political scientist K. Deutsch(b. 1912). He viewed the political system in the context of a “communication approach,” in which politics was understood as a process of managing and coordinating the efforts of people to achieve set goals. Special meaning in political communication has the exchange of information between managers and governed in order to achieve agreement. Therefore, the formulation of goals is carried out by the political system on the basis of information about the situation of society and its relationship to these goals. The functioning of a political system depends on the quality and volume of information coming from the external environment and information about its own movement. Political decisions are made based on two streams of information.
Model K. Deutsch draws attention to the importance of information in life half and
social systems , but omits the value of other variables: gender will, ideology, which can also influence the selection of information.
The political system consists of subsystems that are interconnected and ensure the functioning of public authority. Changing one leads to a change in the functioning of the entire system.
Institutional subsystem includes the state, political parties, public organizations and movements, pressure groups, media, church, etc. The central place is given to the state, which represents the entire society. It has sovereignty within state borders and independence beyond them. (By concentrating the majority of resources in its hands and having a monopoly on legal violence, the state has great opportunities to influence various aspects of public life). The maturity of this subsystem determines the degree of specialization of the roles and functions of its structures. Thanks to specialization, this subsystem can quickly and effectively respond to new needs and requirements of the population.
Regulatory includes legal, political, moral norms, values, traditions, customs. Through them, the political system has a regulatory impact on the activities of institutions and citizens.
Functional – these are methods of political activity, means and methods of exercising power (consent, coercion, violence, authority, etc.). The predominance of certain methods (coercion or coordination) determines the nature of the relationship between government and civil society, methods of integration and achieving integrity..
Communicative includes all forms of political interaction between government, society, and individual (press conferences, meetings with the population, television appearances, etc.). Communication system characterizes the openness of power, its ability to enter into dialogue, strive for agreement, respond to the needs of various groups, and exchange information with society.
Cultural – includes a value system, religion, mentality (a set of ideas about society, image, character and way of thinking). The higher the degree of cultural homogeneity, the higher the efficiency of the activities of half of the institutions.
Functions of the political system.
By interacting with each other, the subsystems ensure the life activity of the PS and contribute to effective implementation its functions in society. One of the most complete classifications of functions by P.S. given by G. Almond and D. Powell.
. Function of political socialization.
1. Regulatory function. It is expressed in the regulation of the behavior of groups, individuals, communities on the basis of the introduction of political and legal norms, compliance with which is ensured by the executive and judicial authorities.
2. Extraction function. Its essence lies in the ability of the system to draw resources from the external and internal environment for its functioning. Any system needs materials, financial resources, and political support.
3. Distribution (distributive)function. P.S. distributes received resources, statuses, privileges social institutions, individuals and groups to ensure integration within society. Thus, education, administration, and the army require centralized financing. These resources are drawn from the external environment, for example, from the economic sphere, through taxes.
4. Reaction function. It is expressed in the ability of the political system to be receptive to (impulses) the demands of various groups of the population. The quick response of the system determines its effectiveness.
5. Function of political socialization. It means the process of assimilation by a person of half-values, ideals, knowledge, feelings, experience, allowing him to fulfill various political roles.