Articles

This article off ers a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of modern populism. The author considers diff erent approaches to the defi nition of populism, analyzes the reasons for its revival in the 21st century and the main forms and typology of populism. The reasons for the emergence of populist movements at the present stage, according to the author, are a number of trends in the sociopolitical development of Western societies: the erosion and decline of traditional party organizations; the deterioration of the middle class; the mediatization of policy; new practices of political participation associated with the development of Internet media; the rise to power of technocrats in a number of states; the growth of protest moods; and so on. The development of populist movements today is moving towards what Colin Crouch has termed post-democracy. This actualizes a discussion of the transformation of forms of democratic representation and participation: populists of various persuasions put forward as an acceptable form of interaction between citizens and the political class such models as “participatory,” “direct” and “transparent” democracy. The author sees a threat to democracy in populism. Yet while the article notes that modern populist movements are a reaction to crisis phenomena in the democratic system itself, the author nevertheless believes that the danger of rising populist sentiments may also serve as an incentive for reforming democracy and further strengthening it.

This article examines the modern crisis of liberal democracy and the phenomenon of new authoritarianism arising fr om it. The current crisis manifests itself in mass support for populist politicians and right-wing political organizations in the Western democratic countries. The author makes a comparative analysis of historical forms of authoritarian systems and their analogues in the 21st century, noting that modern authoritarian systems have democratic legitimization and rarely use violent methods; however, they always seek to lim it the functions of traditional democratic institutions. The article proposes to consider the “new authoritarianism” as a system of concentration of state power that does not respect the principle of separation of powers, the rule of law or constitutional provisions while limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens. The author notes that the frustration of citizens with their socio-economic situation and the growth of nationalism are the main causes of the crisis of democracy. The existing crisis can be overcome, he continues, by reforming traditional democratic institutions, carrying out educational activities and increasing the role of citizens in the political process. The end result of the crisis, the author concludes, may be the strengthening of democratic institutions if the proposed reforms are implemented.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the potential of the video game “People Power” as a means of training civil society activists for the deployment of political campaigns involving the use of the technology of nonviolent struggle. The article’s methodological research is based on the use of descriptive political analysis. The theoretical basis of the work is a synthesis of elements of the concepts of relative deprivation (T. R. Gurr), social identity (Henri Tajfel and John Turner) and the model of mass consciousness (D. V. Olshansky). The authors conclude from analysis of the use of the game that “People Power” has great potential as a means of training civil society activists for the deployment of nonviolent struggle campaigns. It serves simultaneously as an interactive textbook, an instrument for reformatting consciousness, a means of recruiting civil activists potentially capable of forming the core of protest, and the basis for the formation of a constantly functioning “brainstorming” center aimed at improving the technology of nonviolent struggle.

This article is devoted to the study of the problem of ubiquitous informatization and electronization, which has caused the formation of a peculiar virtual reality as an integral part of actual reality. The author analyzes the features of virtual reality and their infl uence on the political space. The term “post-reality” is used to designate the environment created by the features of the virtual space. The article views in detail such phenomena generated by post-reality as the post- truth created by the merging of politics with the virtual environment and the post-values that directly aff ect the political information agenda. In turn, post-values are divided into simulations of popularity and simulations of achievements because of which real personalities and actions, including those related to politics, are devalued. In turn, they are replaced by virtual analogues, which often do not register in actual reality. At the end of the article the author analyzes the reaction generated by the post-reality, off ering examples of this reaction in politics.

The question of the ratio of economic and political freedom is considered in this article through the analysis of the actual values of the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) and the Democracy Index (DI) for 162 countries. Despite the rather high correlation of both indices, the study reveals a signifi cant degree of their variability: there are enough countries that do not quite fi t into the expected model “countries with a high IEF have a high DI, and countries with low IEF — a low DI.” In countries with equivalent IEF values, the values of the DI can vary 2-3 times; likewise, countries with the same DI can vary signifi cantly in IEF. In practice, it is clear that economic freedom does not always require political freedom (United Arab Emirates), and political freedom can be realized in conditions of limited economic freedom (India). A country’s ability to deviate from the expected global trend line is infl uenced by the size of the population and the size of the territory. Among countries that deviate signifi cantly from the trend, a signifi cant proportion are countries with small populations and small territories. As an alternative to the traditional method of analysis, the article proposes an approach that takes into account the size of the population of countries and is based on the recognition that the subject of political and economic freedoms is not a country, but an individual. This approach shows that only 11 % of the population lives in “ free” countries, and the relationship between economic and political freedoms is less obvious than one would expect in theory.

The article discusses the possibilities of coexistence of democracy and technocracy in technocratic mechanisms of power formation, functioning in democratic and fl awed-democratic political systems and allowing to overcome the existing shortcomings of the democratic way of recruiting the political elite, while preserving such democratic components as election and competition. The main weaknesses in recruiting elites in modern democracies are the risk of coming to power populists, “random” or media personalities, who do not have a suffi cient level of competence and professionalism but are capable of destabilizing the political system; as well as the infl uence of party or personal interests of individual politicians on the adoption of state decisions. The article analyzes such mechanisms of power formation as functional constituencies that simultaneously corresponding to technocratic and democratic criteria, their features of functioning in various political systems and cultures, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

The Prussian colonel and political thinker Carl von Clausewits (1780–1831) is known as an author of the famous quotation: «War is nothing but the continuation of politics in diff erent ways». Anyway, his treatise «On War», where this statement was fi rstly presented, is still raising many debates among the researchers, because this essay of Clausewits had not been completed. In political end textual analyzing of its contentce, the author concludes that Clausewits considers approaching peace as the main aim the war. However, the German thinker does not assert that this peace can be universal and eternal and new wars are impossible. The original peculiarity of Clausewits’s theory is acceptance of those wars that only threaten the opponents and are to reassure the negotiations as one of the main perspectives of state politics.

This article provides an analysis of the problems that Bosnia and Herzegovina must deal with in order to function as a stable country nearly a quarter-century after the end of the civil war. The analysis is based on the theory of ethnic confl ict and rational choice theory, using the methodology developed by Roger D. Petersen and presented in his study “Understanding Ethnic Violence.” In addition, the institutionalist approach is also used in the part of the study that concerns the structure of the political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article consists of two chapters. The fi rst off ers an analysis of the correlation between ethnic composition, demographic trends and the process of nation building in Bosnia in the second half of the 20th century, as well as an examination of the causes of the ethnic confl icts and related dysfunctionality of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. The second chapter contains an analysis of the structure of the Bosnian political system and its administrative entities and of how these institutions relate to the processes that create ethnic confl icts in this particular country.

Public diplomacy (PD), as a communication policy between societies of different states, is a relatively new tool in the foreign policies of Russia and Armenia. The culturological aspect is the most important element of public diplomacy, as it defi nes a set of values and cultural policies aimed at transmitting a state’s position to a foreign audience. Although the very objectives of public diplomacy diff er for Russia and Armenia, both states face the necessity of adjusting their policies, focusing not on comparing themselves with anyone or in opposition to anything but rather on the crystalization of their own cultural, ideological and integrational position (in the Russian case) and on preservation of the historical and spiritual unity of a state with communities living abroad (as is the case with Armenia). In light of the absence of a state concept of PD, it is especially important for Armenia to form a Council for Public Diplomacy to bring together theoreticians and practitioners specializing in the fi eld from the Republic of Armenia and unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, giving them an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the experience of public diplomacy in states that are among the most active initiators of this policy in international area.