As type of social relations - between individuals, small groups and big общностями

In the first case of the politician it is considered in the form of a structural component of a society with the defined position inherent in it and a role but which thus possesses special substantial and functional properties. In the Marxist theory of the politician acts in a role of the regulating "superstructure" consisting first of all from the state organisation which provides developed imperious status quo for system of relations of manufacture and an exchange. At Tolkotta Parsons and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) political subsystem of a society carries out functions целеполагания and целедостижения. At бихевиористов (Harold Lassuell, Abraham Kaplan [1918-1993]) the political system is connected with control and distribution of resources. Scientists assign to a policy of function of the coordination of the general and private interests, realisation of the power, maintenance of a public order and a management of people, realisation of the valid purposes, regulation of resources and management of society.

The second type of an explanation of a policy is based on its treatment as a way of cumulative and individual activity of social subjects, a kind of human activity and behaviour in a society. In Marxism the main maintenance of a policy - race for power, actions on its gain and deduction. Max Veber (1864-1920) considers the given category as the enterprise and professional work. For Harold Lassuella and others бихевиористов a policy - a kind of social behaviour of individuals and their groups, characterised by installations and the motivations connected with participation in властвовании.

The third explanation of a policy includes it in a difficult network of social relations and communications. Still Aristotle defined a policy as the higher type of human dialogue, and Makiavelli saw in it a multilateral antagonism of various social subjects for the power in the state. Марксисты treat a policy as relations of classes concerning the government. There were also modern scientific models which classify a policy according to interactions of type the conflict - a consensus. Schemes of imperious relations where the policy is understood as a certain general structure for connection (consolidation) of different displays of social and political life (Moris Djuverzhe [a sort are developed. 1917]).

The maintenance of concept of "politician", despite development of scientific knowledge, constantly remains opened, being exposed to changes and additions in process of occurrence of new theoretical models. It shows futility of unequivocal definitions of a phenomenon of a policy, aspirations to catch its eternally escaping specificity in borders of once found logic. The term of "politician" practically is always used in several senses. So, known French political scientist Rajmon Aron allocated some its treatments:

The concept of a policy is used for a designation of the concept, the program of actions or actions of groups of people in relation to any one problem or set of the problems facing a society;

In other sense the word of "politician" concerns sphere of public life where compete or various political directions or the organisations confront. A policy - area or sphere in which persons or the groups of people having differing interests struggle;

In the third sense distinction of the term of "politician" concerns institutional measurement of a legal order and the traditions, a certain imperious system of this or that community of people, a way of its imperious organisation.

The relation to a policy as to inevitably multidimensional world is characteristic and for the American politological school. A.Renni, the professor of the Californian university, the author of the book “Management: conducting in a political science”, published in many countries, marked thereupon: “In the widest sense of the politician includes decision-making processes and compulsion processes in any groups which create and realise rules for the members”. It represents a policy as relations (dialogue) between social groups; activity of people; functioning of political institutes and the organisations; social behaviour; set of the political ideals extended in a society, ideologies, doctrines and morally-ethical values; orientations, predilections and experience accordingly individuals, groups, the nations, the people, civilisations; communication processes.

The Russian political scientist Elena Borisovna Shestopal allocates five most general aspects of understanding of a policy:

- As systems - the state institutes, parties, public associations;

- As processes - dynamic changes to which institutes, executors of different functions and a rule of a game of politics are exposed;

- As games by rules - hand-written (norms of the right) and unwritten (traditions, customs, norms of behaviour), regulating mutual relations in political sphere;

- As structures of certain values and installations, special ideological approaches to a policy;

- As the kinds of human activity including in political activity and professionals, and ordinary citizens and defining special types of their behaviour.

III. At the same time in all set of scientific representations about the politician there are also such theoretical designs, ways of an explanation of the studied political phenomena which generalise all scale of the ideas connected with them, estimations, feelings, representations. These basic in character representations about the nature and essence of a policy act as the original theoretical base on which all set of supervision and conclusions about various is built, described throughout centuries and millenia forms of a state system, the relation between the social classes dominating and subordinated by it, activity of structures of the public power etc. can name Such principles of understanding of a policy paradigms if to use entered into a scientific turn in the twenties ХХ century American Thomas Kunom (1922-1996) concept. In most general view this scientist treated a paradigm as logic model of statement and the decision of an informative problem. For a political science those paradigms which interpret its nature and essence, formation and development sources, distribution scales, the most important lines and properties of a policy among which are allocated have fundamental value:

1) a theological paradigm. The supernatural explanation of the divine nature of the power and the policy, completely excluding the person from among their creators, remained up to occurrence of works of Fomy Akvinsky who has confirmed other interpretation of the theological approach to the world of the political. The medieval thinker started with presence of 3 basic elements of the power: a principle, a way and existence. The first proceeds from God, the second and the third are derivative of the human right. Thus, both the power, and subjects of the power were defined not only supernatural display of divine will, but also will of the person. The power acted as a certain combination invisible, провиденциального management and human efforts. As it is possible to notice, at the heart of the theological approach to a policy and the power logic scientific knowledge logic and rational criteria, and principles of belief, inexplicable from the point of view of reason of conviction in потусторонних sources of creation of the world lie not. Now basically only philosophers-seminary students profess similar postulates, but the fact is that the theological paradigm has fixed a number of important characteristics of a phenomenon of a policy;

2) a naturalistic paradigm. With its help scientists try to explain the policy nature, proceeding from dominating value of factors of extrasocial, natural character. At formation of this paradigm special value was got by three approaches - geographical, biopolitical and психологизаторский:

- The first of them has led to formation in the end of XIX - the beginning of the XX-th centuries of geopolitics - the separate politological discipline proving dependence politicians from prirodno-geographical factors. This science and is capable to make today serious impact on political regulation of the international relations, variety of questions and problems of public life;

- The second approach has led to occurrence in 70th years ХХ century in the USA biopoliticians as independent discipline when for knowledge of political sphere of life of human communities the primacy of instinctive, genetically congenital properties of the person admits sufficient;

- For психологизаторского the approach which has arisen still in a XVII-th century, and today the basic idea are data of all political phenomena to prevailing influence of psychological qualities of the person;

3) социоцентристская a paradigm. It unites the widest group of the theoretical representations which authors unanimously recognise a public origin and the policy nature, that is it is considered by them as a certain form of the social organisation of human life, as a defining aspect of life of a society. In the widest plan supporters of these approaches try to explain the nature of a policy in two basic ways: one proceed thus from a priority external in relation to it of factors, others prefer internal factors of self-movement and policy self-development. Both those, and others state the judgements within the limits of separate theories and paradigms. Most original of them is Charles Shmitta's theory (1888-1985). This German scientist recognised that a policy has no own bases, scooping energy from all other areas of life. Without making separate sphere, the policy is formed as result of increase of human contradictions, increases of their intensity to a stage of relations of "enemies" and "friends". "Enemy", according to Shmittu, is set of the people resisting to the same set of individuals when the image of "stranger" means not the personal opponent, namely the public enemy struggle with which can accept and forms of its physical destruction. "Friend" are «», that is that set of people in relation to which the policy acts as association and integration means;

4) a cultural urological paradigm. Its creators recognise that integrity of a policy and its unity with a society is defined by integrity of the person, they consider a policy as a product of intelligent activity of people, and its main appointment - as realisation of creative functions of people. This paradigm does not allow to forget, as in the politician the person should be oneself and follow a principle «homo homini homo est» (“the person to the person - the person”);

5) a conflict paradigm. The idea of internal discrepancy, a conflictness of political life was recognised in XIX century the Scientists adhering to such sights, do not consider presence of conflicts as threat to political development of a society for the competition concerning scarce resources of the power or social statuses, prestige positions is regarded by them as sources of self-movement and evolution of political organisms. Influence of conflicts on political life is considered as exclusively constructive. Thereupon supporters of a disputed paradigm reduce all basic problems mainly to search of the most effective technologies of management by conflicts;

6) a consensus paradigm. In a counterbalance to a paradigm of conflicts, in a modern political science there was a direction which has made with a conceptual method of interpretation politicians a consensus. From the point of view of supporters of this approach, the unity of ideals, the basic социокультурных values and population reference points allows осознанно to regulate difficult relations between people, to resolve conflicts arising between them, to support stability in a society. Revolutions, sharp political confrontation are considered from this point of view as the organisations of a society falling outside the limits norms, as anomalies of political life. For the normal existence of the politician should interfere with occurrence of conflicts and crises, supporting a condition of "social solidarity» (Emil Djurkgejm, 1858-1917) to render constant «pedagogical influence» on citizens of the state (John Dewey [ 1859-1952 ]) etc.

IV. The French political scientist Moris Djuverzhe has formulated judgement according to which everything, or nearly so all in a human society has political aspect, and anything, or nearly so nothing belongs to a policy entirely. The understanding of the nature and specific properties of a policy assumes scientific comprehension of its communications and relations with other spheres of life of human societies. Coming under influence of economy, morals, the right, culture, the politician and itself has on them certain influence, finding thus new properties and qualities. Meanwhile existing in practice of political life the tendency of absolutization of functional communications between various spheres of public life quite often leads to the most serious deformations and politicians, and social life as a whole. Thereupon there is a necessity slightly more in detail to stop on similar parities:

- A policy and economy. The policy as a social phenomenon is formed on crossing of some sociohistorical tendencies. Therefore the reasons of its occurrence cannot be settled only by one of them, in this case - economy. As a whole economic processes are not "primogenitors" of political sphere. Basically the economy has this or that influence on a policy through social sphere, defining financial position of different social groups and causing thereby differentiation of social statuses of their members. In turn, the policy which was generated after occurrence and a diversification of industrial and exchange processes, too cannot be considered as the basic factor of development of economy. At the same time as the version of the imperiously-state compulsion of the politician keeps considerable регулятивные abilities of influence on processes in economic sphere in the form of economic policy. This ability of a policy is realised, first of all, in those situations when this or that social problem gets considerable social scale and starts to infringe on interests of a considerable part of the population or all state. In this sense character of political influence on economy can be triple: positive, negative or neutral;

- A policy and the right. Their mutual relations as a matter of fact are defined by features of ways of regulation of a social order inherent in them and technologies of application of the government. So, a policy genetically сориентирована on maintenance of group priorities in the government organisation for the policy "works" on the coordination and advancement of interests of the most viable social groups with collective requirements and the purposes. At the same time the policy always considers influence real, instead of the formal social centres, those forces which are capable to influence redistribution of resources and decision-making practically. System of legal regulation it is primary сориентирована on regulation of all social space as a whole, without allocating any group priorities. The right removes group pointedness of a political competition, making identical demands to all citizens of the state, irrespective of their party accessory, etc. For the right an activity major principle is the disposition «the law - a deviation from the law» (instead of «formal - real» influence as in the politician), therefore its regulators seldom operate in a prevention mode, relying basically on authorisation technics. More shortly, the policy in a society proves as the search mechanism of social development developing its projects, and the right - the giving mechanism to such projects of valid character;

- A policy and morals. The problem of a parity of a policy and morals occupies minds of thinkers on an extent not one millenium. In the problem centre always there were questions of moral influence on the power, abilities of a society to одухотворению a political competition. While the policy forces the person to estimate events and acts from the point of view of harm and advantage, benefit or a loss, the morals place the same questions in a plane of mutual relation of abstract Good and Harm, real and due. Morals - the special sphere of public life based on an estimation of any acts and actions of people from the point of view of justice and injustice, good and harm. It is based on certain understanding of sense of existence and mission of the person. The morals are not utilitarian for the separate person, it is useful and essential to society as promotes human race preservation. Unlike a policy, the right, economy the morals do not need special enforcement machinery and punishments. Its unique sanction - conscience, that is emotional experience of responsibility of the person before by itself, other people, a society, God. It - morals conductor, the internal judge who is carrying out self-checking there where public supervision is not possible.

The term "morals" under the maintenance - Latin analogue Ancient Greek etos (ethics). In Latin language there is a word “ mos ” (plural - mores ), designating customs, the custom, a steady order. On its base of Tsitseron has formed an adjective moralis (moral) for ethics designation, naming it philosophia moralis. Later there is a word "morals" ( moralitas ) as the collective characteristic of all moral displays. In the dictionary of Russian of S.I.Ozhegova the morals are defined as “rules of morals and morals”, and morals, in turn, as “the rules defining behaviour, the spiritual and sincere qualities necessary for the person in a society, in also performance of these rules, behaviour”. In “the short philosophical dictionary” 1997 The morals, morals are defined as “a way of self-realisation of the person, its self-management and streamlining of human relations on the basis of general concepts about norms, principles and the ideals which are going back to“ value of good ”. S.A.mosquito during the same time a little differently interprets concept of morals. He understands as that“ direct reflexion of conditions of public life in consciousness of people in the form of categories of justice and injustice, good and harm, laudable and shameful, encouraged and blamed, honour, conscience, a debt, advantage ”.

In world social life it is possible to allocate four main approaches of scientists to treatment of mutual relations of a policy and morals:

The policy only then carries out the role when it is moral, that is it can and should use for self-realisation only is moral admissible means. Конфуций saw in self-improvement a basis of good management, virtue declared unique means of submission of people to an order. Плутарх considered what to trust disgraceful the power like arms mad a sword. For Platon and Aristotle obviously that the worthy should participate in the politician only. G.Mabli named a policy public morals, and morals - a private policy. ZH.-ZH.Russo appealed to policy and morals connection: who will want to study separately a policy and morals, that will understand nothing neither in that, nor in another, and everything that is moral harm, is harm and in the politician. T.Jefferson believed that all management skill consists in art to be fair. Life has shown that attempts completely to subordinate a policy of morals in the spirit of a moral absolutism doom her to an inefficiency and by that compromise both morals, and a policy. The history has shown unacceptability, danger and other extreme measure when the policy subordinates to itself completely ethical standards and values. If the political expediency thus substitutes simple requirements of honesty, decency, conscience there is a threat to the public order.

Policy out of morals. According to this approach, a policy and morals are independent and should not interfere in the competence each other. The morals are a business of a civil society, a private responsibility, the politician - area of an antagonism of group interests, free from morals. Many consider as the ancestor of such sights N.Makiavelli. In the well-known work "Sovereign" he asserted that the policy should consider a concrete condition of public customs, including moral perversity of people and if in the people civil virtues are not developed and in a society anarchy a sovereign has the right to use any, including immoral, means accrues. In private life he is obliged to be guided by the standard norms of morals. Макиавелли keeps morals as a regulator of private life of politicians, and also as a noble purpose justifying immoral ways of its achievement in this connection the opinion on it as about the apologist of a full separation of a policy from morals is represented incorrect;

Policy it is malicious. This position starts with policy and morals opposition as irreconcilable contrasts. Anarchists adhere to most consistently such position. The policy and its main carrier - the state, wrote the father of Russian anarchism M.A.Bakunin, “that is violence, domination by means of the violence disguised and frank”. Malicious, it continued, roots in the nature of a policy - in the power for “who is invested by the power, that under the invariable sociological law will by all means become the oppressor and the oppressor of a society”. Are close to them in this respect and марксисты. They treat a policy as inevitable in living conditions of operation of classes and a social inequality angrily. Negative estimations of a policy can be found and at liberal thinkers. So, N.A.Berdjaev wrote thereupon: “ At me disgust for "policy" which is the most ominous form of an objectivization of human existence, its ejection outside. It is always based on lie. The policy substantially is the fiction owning people, the parasitic outgrowth exhausting blood from people ”;

- Ethics of responsibility and ethics of belief of M.Vebera as attempt to find the permission of a problem of morals in the politician. This approach now divide the majority of political scientists which start with a recognition of necessity of influence of morals on a policy at the account of specificity of last. And it, according to Weber, consists in application by a violence policy. “ Specific means of legitimate violence … in hands of the human unions, - was written by him, - and causes feature of all ethical problems of a policy ”. To outline border of influence of morals on a policy, Weber divides morals into ethics of belief and ethics of responsibility. Ethics of belief mean persistent following to moral principles irrespective of, it will result in what results, without reckoning with expenses and victims. Ethics of responsibility, on the contrary, assume the account of concrete conditions, policy orientation first of all on its consequences, internal responsibility of politicians for those results of the actions which it was possible to expect, readiness to prevent большее angrily including by means of harm smaller.

In modern democracies the relation of a policy and morals, political and moral consciousness develop in such a manner that value of the moral beginning increases in the politician, even more often the political phenomena are exposed to moral measurement, a moral estimation, there are “очеловечивание politicians”, the policy receives more and more accurate humanistic orientation. For a humanisation of a policy and strengthening of morals by the best that system is not, “which shows to the citizens more and more high or even the highest moral requirements. Actually that system which, first of all, answers human character in its usual ambivalence is better: to bad bents of people puts necessary restrictions, but at the same time opens the greatest possible open space for the right and will of people to carry out self-development for their ability to good” - marks B.Sutor from Germany.

V. The Policy arises and is carried out for the sake of realisation of definite purposes. The purpose, means and result - the basic components of political and any other activity:

- The purpose - the ideal result developed by human thinking for the sake of which activity is carried out and which serves as its internal incentive motive. The policy prime target - harmonisation of a combination of private and general interests, than the state is authorised to be engaged;

- Policy means - tools, tools of practical realisation of the purposes, transformations of ideal motives into real actions. They represent concrete factors of influence of subjects of the power on weights: propaganda campaigns, the strikes, the armed actions, electoral struggle etc.;

Дата добавления: 2014-01-04