Articles

The article analyzes the main publications on ethnopolitical problems in the “Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12. Political Science”. The first articles on the actual theme at that time were appeared in the beginning of the 1990s. The reviewed materials represent the main approaches of Russian scholars to the analysis of ethnopolitical problems and the range of issues related to them. In the context of these data, one can state a tendency towards the analysis of ethnopolitical processes in the focus of conscious and mental phenomena. This trend has been embodied in the use of the concepts of “mentality” and “identity”. At the same time, we have to state that the theoretical aspects of ethno-political science are still insuffi ciently developed.

The article is devoted to the study of the question concerning the possibility of empirical analysis and, on this basis, the assessment of the contribution of emigrant scientists to the development of Russian political thought, including scientists-passengers of the “philosophical steamer”. The research was carried out on the basis of a comparative analysis of the materials of two anthologies containing texts of Russian political thinkers. Two directions (Soviet and emigrant) in the development of domestic political thought in 1920s–1950s were compared. At the same time, the author of the article proceeds from the assumption that the compilers of the anthologies were the most competent experts assessing both the quality of the political texts of certain researchers and the ability to give a more or less complete picture of the state of political thought in a given period through a set of selected texts. Based on the analysis of empirical material, the article concludes that the contribution of emigrant researchers to the development of Russian political thought in the 1920s–1950s prevailed, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

The article is devoted to the study of the question concerning the possibility of empirical analysis and, on this basis, the assessment of the contribution of emigrant scientists to the development of Russian political thought, including scientists-passengers of the “philosophical steamer”. The research was carried out on the basis of a comparative analysis of the materials of two anthologies containing texts of Russian political thinkers. Two directions (Soviet and emigrant) in the development of domestic political thought in 1920s–1950s were compared. At the same time, the author of the article proceeds from the assumption that the compilers of the anthologies were the most competent experts assessing both the quality of the political texts of certain researchers and the ability to give a more or less complete picture of the state of political thought in a given period through a set of selected texts. Based on the analysis of empirical material, the article concludes that the contribution of emigrant researchers to the development of Russian political thought in the 1920s–1950s prevailed, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

In an article dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the journal “Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12. Political Sciences”, we examine the history of its formation and development from 1971 to the present. Despite the changes in the name, caused by cardinal changes in the political life of the country, the journal is characterized by a historical relationship that expresses the logic of political development and its scientifi c understanding. Since the introduction of political science into university education in Russia, the development of the foundations of political science in close connection with the study of topical issues and the development of political science education has become a priority in the journal’s activities. The creation of the Faculty of Political Science at Moscow State University strengthened the role of the journal as a venue for research and the application of results into the practice of pedagogical work. The focus of the journal constant attention is the topic of the domestic and foreign policy of Russia. In this regard, the problems of the transitional nature of the current stage of world development, ways of overcoming its inherent contradictions, dangers and crises are investigated. Another group of questions concerns the relations between the state and the market, the state and civil society, ways to preserve sovereignty and political stability in its diverse dimensions. An important place is given to issues of information and cybersecurity, digital society and the political aspects of social networks. Topics related to ideological currents and the competition of traditions, interests and values are also widely presented in the journal. The combination of academic emphasis with constant attention to topical issues of domestic and world politics, mutual enrichment of theoretical and empirical approaches, theoretical research and applied analysis allowed our journal to achieve good results in domestic and world rankings of journals with the topic “Politics. Political Sciences”, which, of course, is not a reason for slowing down, but instead, an incentive for further development.

The article deals with the history of the scientifi c journal “Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12. Political Science” in 2009–2021. The journal is the successor to the series “Theory of Scientifi c Communism”, the edition of which was launched 50 years ago — in 1971. With this series, it became possible to substantively selfdetermine two disciplines that were intensively developing abroad — sociology and political science.
By order of the rector of Lomonosov Moscow State University Academician V.A. Sadovnichy, edition of “Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12. Political Science” was transferred to the Political Science Department, and the dean-organizer of the faculty, professor A.Yu. Shutov became its editor in chief. During this time, an international editorial board was created, the circle of authors, including those from abroad, was expanded, the examination of incoming articles was strengthened, the journal signifi cantly increased its presence on the Internet, which contributes to the growth of its citation (impact factor). Thanks to the development of the edition, the journal took 1st place in the Science Index rating on the topic “Politics. Political Sciences” in August 2020 and was included in the Russian Science Citation Index on the Web of Science platform.

The review is devoted to the publication in Russian of the monograph by Roger Scruton (Sir Roger Vernon Scruton FBA FRSL), a polemical argumentation against several famous thinkers that became cult figures for contemporary intellectuals on the left of the political spectrum. The purpose of the English philosopher is to ‘protect’ the society that is commonly called “capitalist” from the destructive impact of their ideas. By and large, for Scruton the “capitalist” represents an analogue of Western civilisation, its traditional political, cultural, and social values. In his book, the English philosopher analyses the ideas of a wide range of thinkers belonging to different schools of thought. The criticism of Eric Hobsbawm and Edward Thompson, two figures that laid the foundations for the movement of the ‘new left’ in Great Britain, represents a paradigmatic example of his approach and methods. Although Scruton does not belong to the category of ‘heavyweight’ academicians used to take part in such polemics (as, for example, Raymond Aron), his work nonetheless preserves a certain intellectual value, supported by a fair amount of journalistic enthusiasm.

The article overviews the biography, scientific path and the legacy of the doctor of psychological sciences, professor, founder of the first Department of Political Psychology in Russia, Aleksandr Ivanovich Yuriev (1942–2020). The usual life path of a Soviet teenager: school — vocational school — factory — military service — factory, were accompanied by A.I. Yuriev’s reflections on his personal experience and inspiring encounters with unique people who became his mentors. All his life, professor A.I. Yuriev kept a good memory and gratitude to his teachers: academician B.G. Ananiev, professor A.A. Krylov, professor V.A. Hansen. Their scientific work became the basis on which professor A.I. Yuriev created his own scientific school of political psychology. The theoretical and methodological foundation of the Russian political psychology was supplemented by an intense and successful scientific and practical work in the most difficult political period of the 1990s. This experience allowed him and other members of the department to become full-fledged members of the ISPP (International Society of Political Psychology) and take part in a series of ISPP conferences. From the establishment of the Department of Political Psychology at St. Petersburg State University in 1989 to the last conference held by Professor A.I. Yuriev in 2019 have past 30 years. In this short period of time according to the standards of history, a unique scientific school of political psychology was created and it’s now characterized by a solid experience in scientific and practical work, with former graduate students successfully working in political disciplines and with a consolidated programme for future scientific research.

The article provides the analysis of the results of a qualitative study of the perception of regional political leaders in the context of crisis in 2020. The study is based on the materials of a research project conducted by the Political Sociology and Psychology Programme of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. The research methodology includes in-depth interviews and ‘fixed associations’ methods, allowing the authors to focus on the influence of an objective factor (political context) on the process of political perception. The empirical part of the work, supporting the suggested theoretical model, is based on three case-studies, namely citizens’ perception of the Moscow Mayor, the President of Bashkortostan Republic and the Governor of Krasnodar. The study shows that a society in the process of overcoming a socio-political crisis, has specific and particular requirements concerning the professional and personal characteristics of regional political leaders. Non-compliance with these requirements directly affects not only the level of electoral support for Russian regional leaders, but also increases the general protest potential.

The article analyses the much-discussed idea over the past few years of “de-oligarchization” of Russian politics and economy. Starting from the analysis of how the concepts of “oligarch” and “equidistance [of the oligarchs] from power” are articulated in the Russian public sphere, the article investigates what institutional or rhetorical changes affected the transformation of the public opinion when comparing the perception of politics in the 1990s with the following period of time. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the socio-economic transformation that have taken place within Russia and the concurrent discursive shift, including the notion of “rethinking” the Russian political reality, repeatedly stressed by various speakers. The article argues that the methodologically effective neo-corporatist paradigm of interaction between government and business remains a relevant analytical framework to investigate and describe contemporary relations between public authorities and powerful businessmen.

The article offers an analysis of the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation implemented in 2020. The author comes to the conclusion that due to the shortcomings of the 1993 Constitution — adopted in the context of a political crisis — its revision was unavoidable. In the new socio-political realities of the 2010s–2020s, the Russian authorities decided, for the first time, to establish a channel of communication with the society, which forced them to rely on the procedure of popular vote on the amendments and support of the notion of “unconditional sovereignty” as a goal of the constitutional changes. Having received this popular approval, the political regime of Vladimir Putin, representing a compromise between transnational and national elites, announced a new stage of state-building. The main task of this process is indeed the gradual repudiation of the external influence that developed in the 1990s. Consequently, the value of sovereignty and its various types becomes the main reference point of the Russian state policy. Will the opportunity become a reality? The answer to this question largely depends on the future socio-economic track undertaken by the Russian authorities.