Articles

The article describes the normative model of Russian statehood developed by the authors, which reflects the ideal state of the system, taking into account its historical and present content. The historical component is manifested in the fact that the model includes axiological constants of Russian statehood in their traditional meaning identified by researchers of socio-political thought. The part corresponding to the present is based on the current value orientations of mass consciousness, as well as the values declared at the moment in regulatory legal acts. The essence of normativity is largely embedded in its orientation to the future, since this is where a certain ideal state of statehood is located. The model is presented in the form of a triangular pyramid, at the base of which are values rooted in philosophy, religion and psychology of people: life, faith, knowledge, traditions. The top of the pyramid is a social ideal, represented by the value of silence / peace. The inner space of the pyramid is the value orientations of Russian society, and the edges represent instrumental values regulating relations at the political, social and personal levels. The proposed model expands the possibilities of conceptual understanding of the traditional axiological foundations of Russian statehood and modern political processes.

The article focuses on two important problems for contemporary Russian political science: the problem of understanding the concept of ‘statehood’ and the problem of building a model of Russian statehood. In the first case, the various points of view existing in Russian social and humanitarian knowledge are considered in detail, and on the basis of the Russian traditionalist conservative methodology, an original understanding of statehood as a stable axiological complex of spiritual and political principles is proposed. In the second case, based on the axiological nature of statehood, the research potential and limitations of possible modeling of statehood in general and Russian statehood in particular are clearly shown. At the same time, new methodological approaches have been developed that seem to allow continuing work on the development of normative and historical models of Russian statehood.

Political transformations, institutional changes in higher education, paradigm shifts, changes in disciplinary matrices, scientific networks, space and language of science contributed to the non-linear development of political science in Russia and prevented the formation of a metanarrative about the history of Russian political science. As shown by the conducted study, as well as the study of the history of
political science in other countries, such a metanarrative can only be created on the basis of the principles of historicism and contextualism. A significant contribution to the successive development of this discipline was made by scholarly and educational institutions specializing in the production of political knowledge and training professionals in this field. The corresponding infrastructure began to form in Russia at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. At the same time, a key role was played by universities serving the production and transfer of political knowledge, academization of political research, professionalization of political specialties. Using the example of Moscow University, several lines of development of political education are traced in the article: the evolution of disciplinary forms of political science, educational infrastructure and processes of circulation of political knowledge. The institutionalization of political science led to the establishment in 2008 of the Faculty of Political Science at Lomonosov Moscow State University, which continues to play an important role in ensuring continuity in the field of political studies and political education in Russia.

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.