Articles

This article is based on the definition of politics as a specific type of activity by actors (officials, professional politicians, and the ruling political elite) concerning power, its acquisition, and retention through methods and technologies legitimized by society through accessible expression of will on the one hand, and as a system of interactions between the state (power) and society (its organizations, institutions and individuals) — on the other. In this work, public policy is understood as a political course, legally and legitimately implemented by institutions of state power, which defines the target objectives alongside with the value foundations of specific areas of activity administration. At the same time, the character and features of the functioning of a particular state and society, as well as the content of the policies being implemented, are determined primarily by their civilizational foundations.
Based on an analysis of the current situation related to the functioning of contemporary states, the authors have made a conclusion that these states have lost their original pro-social nature and orientation toward public good achievement. This work argues that the prolonged transformation of the substantive and functional characteristics of state systems and institutions has led to the formation of the state’s own self-sufficient hierarchies, goals, values and interests, which often not only ignore and contradict public interests, values and goals but also have a distinctly antisocial character. Political elite capturing public policy leads to a deep crisis in the state-society interactions system and negative consequences for social development. The article places particular emphasis on the state’s use of modern digital technologies and algorithms, which predominantly act as new tools for manipulating public consciousness, covertly appropriating power, and legitimizing such appropriation, leading to a form of “comfortable totalitarianism.”

The article is devoted to identifying the features of Russia as a state of civilization, its inherent system of political and spiritual ideas and values. The emphasis is on the contemporary sound of this concept, its role in upholding the national sovereignty of Russia, its correlation with the general historical imperatives of social development. On the eve of the 270th anniversary of Moscow University, attention is also drawn to the ongoing development of the problems of civilizational characteristics of Russia by political scientists of Moscow State University, who have always sharply opposed the view of Russia as a meaningless geographical space that can be filled with any economic, political, mental form, for whom today the main thing is to rely on domestic traditions, consistently uphold national interests, and create nationally oriented schools in science and education.

The article follows the history of the studies of the concept of ‘Russian Khranitel’stvo’ held at Moscow State University, representing it as an original trend of conservative thought in Russia. Definition is proposed for the notion ‘Khranitel’stvo’, and specific way of the genesis of ‘Russian Khranitel’stvo’ in the 11th–18th centuries is demonstrated. The supposition is made that ‘khranitel’stvo’ is broader than political conservatism, since it includes the idea of patriotism, protection of traditional spiritual values, and national historical experience, national culture, language, faith, and ‘Russian Khranitel’stvo’ is a patriotic, nationally conservative, close to traditionalism current of Russian socio-political thought. It is shown that in the 11th–17th centuries, the interests of the state and Orthodoxy, the protection of the Land and the Church, in other words, the political and religious notions were inextricably linked, and the main quality of the ruler was piety. In the 18th century, not only the piety of the sovereign was put at the forefront, but also the welfare of the whole society and the greatness of the state. They become the objects of “protection”.

The article argues that in conditions of global instability, a national understanding of world realities and the further formation of the Russian international theory (RIT) is not a luxury, but a necessity for the survival and development of the country. At the same time, a special role belongs to applied research, combining the rigor of empirical research and close relation to the ideology of national interests and values. According to the authors, such a combination, defining the boundaries of the national-ideological and general scientific, can protect the RIT from both scientific utopias and ideological isolationism.
In the first section, the authors present their understanding of the ideological and value assumptions about “Russian,” from which one should proceed in the formation of scientific knowledge within the framework of RIT. The second section is devoted to Russian research questions of a contextual and external nature and their specification based on the material of modern world processes. The third section examines the specifics of answering empirical questions by selecting special theories and formulating hypotheses to test them. The conclusion stresses the importance of RIT and the development of applied knowledge for the practical policy of modern Russia.

The article discusses the theory and practice of applying the institute of publicprivate partnership (PPP) as the basis for the interaction of state bodies and business structures. The activation of the problem of interaction between the state and business allows us to find optimal and effective ways to solve emerging problems. The partnership makes it possible to transfer part of the powers to business. Thereby reducing budget expenditures and optimizing the work of the authorities. An effective dialogue between the public and private sectors can solve acute social problems, increase the pace of infrastructure development in the public interest and accelerate economic growth. Therefore, it is important to study the experience and practice of implementing partnerships. The Russian Federation and the USA were chosen as the objects of the study. With the help of comparative analysis, the strengths and weaknesses of each interaction model were identified. The study of the scope of the PPP institute allowed us to make assumptions for expanding the area of interaction between partners. Based on the analysis of the American experience, proposals were put forward to modernize the domestic PPP institute.

In the context of the ongoing mass development of the environment of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the simultaneous increase in international tension, ensuring technological sovereignty in ICTs becomes a qualitatively new challenge, which, among other things, implies the unimpeded reproduction of said technologies against the backdrop of various sanctions regimes and the increasing likelihood of a large-scale military-political escalation. A systematic study of the US experience in overcoming this challenge indicates that, in the perception of American political circles, this challenge is strategic both in essence and its temporal boundaries. At the same time, it can be reasonably argued that the process of semiconductor production capacities reshoring to the US is based on political rather than economic prerequisites, and is faced with a number of issues — most serious of which is a serious shortage of personnel — which cannot be overcome in the short term. It is also important to note the comprehensive nature of the measures taken, which are aimed not only at developing national competencies and production, but also at preventing similar processes in other countries — primarily China.

Over the past few years, a fairly large number of authors have appeared (I.S. Tehlikidi, E.N. Verkin, V.O. Bogdanova, D.S. Zakharov, D.A. Danilov, Ya.M. Wagner) who use the dystopian genre for the socio-political construction of the future, and also use the methods of dystopia and heterotopia to represent modernity or certain aspects of the historical past. The article examines the evolution of the dystopian genre and the current state of this direction, the basis of which is not individual signs and distinctive features, but the concept of ‘dystopian narratives’. In the dystopias of the second decade of the 21st century, three key narratives can be distinguished: 1) adaptation of humanity to the world after a nuclear disaster, 2) digitalization of society and technologization of individual physiology; 2) the strengthening of non-Western political regimes and the collapse of the unipolar world. Thanks to the convergence of contemporary works of art, as well as the active interest of Russian publishing houses, through promotion through traditional media and digital platforms, authors have the opportunity to shape the cultural identity of their readers, as well as influence the perception of modernity. In this model, the reader, thanks to decoding the sign systems of a work of art, creates his own “average version”, which can claim to be both an individual and mass political ideology.

S. Huntington’s article on the clash of civilizations, published a little over 30 years ago, and the book that followed it, partly seemed prophetic — in any case, the main conflicts in Europe unfolded just along the line of civilizational faults outlined by the author; the ideas outlined are still in the focus of attention of political scientists. The article attempts not only to systematize the critical arguments against this concept, but also hermeneutically, based on the text of the article, to consider the question of understanding civilizations and substantiating the idea of their inevitable conflict, and systematically present errors in reasoning. Textual analysis shows that identification, which is considered by Huntington to be actually the key criterion of civilization, is first unreasonably reduced to fundamentalist religious, and then this information is supported by ad hoc assumptions. In addition, a number of logical errors in reasoning are revealed. Based on the results obtained, the heuristic potential of this concept is questioned; the conclusion about the fault line in Europe in this regard is not scientific, but “projective-ideological”.

The article is devoted to the role of Russian museums in constructing collective memory of the Special Military Operation (SMO) events and the main aspects of this process. The research is based on publicly available materials on museum and exhibition projects dedicated to the SMO, as well as the results of an expert survey (n = 5) of representatives of federal museums and non-profit organizations who participated in collecting artifacts at the frontline zone as part of the work of the intermuseum group of the Ministry of Culture of Russia. During the study it was explained why museum workers were involved in creating exhibitions dedicated to the SMO, and main approaches to making exhibitions in departmental, federal and regional museums were revealed. Today’s most problematic issue is that military departmental museums posess priority access to collecting artifacts in the area of SMO. At the same time civil museums, that have more visitors and widest public, get the access on a residual basis. The difficulty also lies in the fact that small regional museums are often unable to place exhibits from SMO area in a broad historical context, as required by the guidelines developed at the federal level.