Articles

Modern global development trends and the tasks set in the annual presidential address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation make clear the necessity for signifi cant socio-political transformations. These changes require the development of modern criteria for new politicians and socio-political leaders and managers as well as the defi nition of approaches to their identifi cation and preparation. The results of a single voting day — September 9, 2018 — have rendered this task immediate. The political system has begun a transformation and is putting forward new demands for political governance. This article presents an analysis of the following: the socio-political prerequisites for the formation of new requirements for political leadership; the theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of political leadership during sociopolitical transformations and to forecasting in the fi eld of political leadership; and the method of determining the requirements for political leadership (characteristics of politicians) based on the principle of mutual infl uence of political leaders and the political environment. The author concludes by presenting the results of expert studies conducted in September, 2018 of the requirements made of politicians and the political environment.

This article off ers a review of the reports presented at the round table “Political Globalistics: Research Directions in a Context of Global Uncertainty” convened by Lomonosov Moscow State University’s Political Science Department as part of the III Congress of the Russian Society of Political Scientists (Moscow, September 10–12, 2018). Among a number of key issues considered by the participants, special attention was paid to current problems of the development of globalistics as an interdisciplinary fi eld of scholarship; the transformation of the subject area of globalistics; and new challenges facing the academic community and the role of interdisciplinary knowledge in their resolution.

This article is devoted to the substantiation of the concept of the political and philosophical phenomenon of scientifi c-technical romanticism. This phenomenon arose during the Enlightenment at the junction of political philosophy and culture, was developed in the worldview of 19th century thinkers and reached its apogee in the 20th century, primarily in the Soviet Union during the era of breakthroughs in space science and atomic energy. Scientifi c-technical romanticism is considered in the article as a formed unity of three component elements: a) anthropological optimism; b) socio-political scientism; and c) humanistic technocratism. The authors lay out the essence of this phenomenon, in its development aspiring to become the highest demiurge capable of radically changing the world. The immanence of the expression of political-philosophical refl ection in both rational and artistic-fi gurative forms allows us to attribute the phenomenon of scientifi c-technical romanticism, the article maintains, to the sphere of political and philosophical research and consider it in this context outside the subject fi elds of literary criticism, cultural studies and philosophy of culture.

This article examines the process of political transformation of social movements, the vectors and means of their evolution and the factors that determine the procedures of their changes. In historical perspective, it was the process of development of social movements that ensured the progressive development of society, its transition to a higher level of social development. The study of the problem of transformation of social movements allows us to address the questions of ensuring sustainable social development, of the role of the masses and the leadership in politics, and to determine the vector of further development of the system of social relations. The author examines the issues of internal and external determinants of the development of social movements, as well as potential forms of their further transformation. The article also examines global trends in social development and answers the question of what impact they have on the process of transformation of social movements.

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 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.