Articles

This article is devoted to the peculiarities of the contemporary geopolitical structure of the world and to the contradictions of global governance under the crisis conditions of the existing world order and the transition from centralized to decentralized globalism. Decentralized globalism creates the basis for a new system of international relations that is very different from the former global order of “center-periphery,” in which the superpowers were recognized as global leaders. Currently, we are observing the segmentation of the global space among several competing integration systems, with the great powers and regional powers included in their composition. Since under present conditions the ideas of global multilevel governance and strong supranational structures are becoming less realizable, integrated systems will become the new global centers in a system of integrationconfrontation polycentricity.

The theory of international relations demonstrates the unattainability of absolute security for participants in European and world politics. The juxtaposition of “correct” and “incorrect” approaches to security does not take into account that the very notion of “security” comprises both objective content and subjective meaning. A universal formula for the ultimate solution to the problems in this fi eld does not exist. Insisting on the superiority of “European values” actually renders plans for a common European security community that protects both the EU and Russia from destabilization futile. International security is a continuous process requiring constant dialogue, effort, compliance with treaties and confi dence-building measures.

A round table devoted to the theme of the viability of states and national interests was recently staged by the Political Science Department of Lomonosov Moscow State University under the auspices of its Program on Comparative Politics and Program on International Relations and Integration Processes. The topic was considered in the context of globalization and international relations. A paper presented by Prof. P. A. Tsygankov discussed the problems of conceptualization of the theoretical contributions to the development of foreign policy and diplomacy of states when the explanatory possibilities of the basic paradigms — realistic and liberal-constructivist — have been exhausted. Prof. V. M. Kapitsyn identified the emergence of the genetic viability of states, developed by the Peace of Westphalia and manifested in various modifications of the world order. Prof. A. I. Kostin analyzed the global trends in the development of the modern world and the capacity of states to counter the negative effects of globalization. Several presentations focused on the problem of the measurement (estimation) of different aspects of the viability of states — information security (T. N. Parshina), ethnopolitical security (E. N. Tyurenkova), activity of the state in the international arena (K. M. Dorokhina), public diplomacy (O. V. Stoletov), international sports activities (P. O. Gruzdeva), and the significance of event-analysis in assessing the viability of states (I. I. Dashkina). Other issues addressed by round table participants included the Mali example of peaceful means for securing independence (U. Diallo), the interaction of Kazakhstan and Belarus in the framework of the EAEU (D. A. Papba), and the institutionalization of migration policy in the border areas of Russia and China (Yuan Xun).

In the first part of this article the authors consider the foundations of the English mentality, which was formed over the centuries on the basis of natural genetic resources, cultural and historical potential and the dogmas of insular Protestantism. The unyielding dogmatism of the British mentality is messianically, uniformly and totally realized in global politics. The unique political competitiveness of Britain is a testament to the consistency, persistence, pragmatic ethics and cruelty of the British government irrespective of changes among the figures at its head. Britain maintains its long-term political influence through the successive development of elites, the system of Protestant values, project-oriented thinking, reflexive management, pragmatic flexibility, a particular system of law, financial strategies, intelligence-gathering, the globalization of the English language and humanitarian technologies. The authors note that the policy of achievement on a global scale is the ultimate expression of national subjectness. In the context of its continuous national history, Britain has been a systemic political super-subject for centuries.

Defi ning social conflict as the highest stage of development of contradictions in relations between people, groups, etc., it is possible to demonstrate both its negative and potentially positive effect. A democratic regime is characterized by the specific nature of the organization of its social relations. A set of rights and civil liberties inherent in democratic states in fact makes it possible both to broaden the spectrum of conflict situations and abet the growth of contradictions. With the development of democratic mechanisms and the emergence of an increasing number of civil institutions, the involvement of society in political processes increases in proportion to the growth of conflict in these societies — making it possible to speak of a certain interdependence among these phenomena. The most pressing issue is the identification of a format for the regulation of social conflict under which a democratic state can receive the greatest positive effect from the events taking place within it.

This article investigates the shaping of popular sovereignty (“narodovlastie”) in Russia of the 15–17th centuries. The author presents popular sovereignty as one of the historical political traditions of Russia that ran parallel with autocracy (“samoderzhavie”). The formation of popular sovereignty is explained by a complex of historical and archival data, providing a sense of the interaction of two levels of Russian governance: centralized princely and tsarist power and institutions at the local levels (the veche and zemstvo assemblies). The interaction of two of these levels, the article demonstrates, led to the genesis of Russian statehood. On the one hand, political autonomy and institutions of multilevel representation based on traditional veche structures were developing; on the other hand, a trend toward centralization and the strengthening of statehood had also been emerging since the end of the 15th century — a trend determined by the policy of Muscovite sovereigns (“the gathering of the lands”). The author demonstrates that traditions of autocratic governance and local-estates representation mutually supplemented each other for a long period. The internal political system was thus shaped under the influence of two ideas: a strong monarchy (autocracy) and popular sovereignty (zemstvo self-government). In search of socio-political support within veche (zemstvo) traditions, Muscovite rulers actively co-operated with local zemstvo self-government, especially when this co-operation served the policy of “the gathering of the lands.”

This article deals with the conceptology of the notion of “tradition,” and the problem of its interpretations in the 20th century and in current scholarship. The author addresses the incorrectness and limited applicability of sociological and historical concepts based on a rigid dichotomy of “tradition-modernity (contemporaneity). ”The confrontation between the two approaches to the phenomenon of tradition, “Weberian” (evolutionary) and “post-Weberian” (dialectical), is described. The article posits a dialectical view of tradition as a guarantor of the fixity of historical changes and social stability — an interpretation of tradition not as an ethno-cultural phenomenon, but as a broader social mechanism responsible for the transfer of social experience and ideals along a chain of generations. In the context of a traditionalistic view, the author offers the concept of a “greater society” based on a contract of generations. The role of tradition in national history is seen as a connection of Russianness with its Byzantine heritage.

This article examines the phenomenon of modern federalism in its geopolitical dimension, underlining the importance of the task of creating a classification system for modern federal states. The author outlines and justifies 10 political and legal criteria of classification, with 32 differentiating characteristics. Each of 24 currently existing federal states receives a unique set of 10 features, presented in the form of a numerical combination. This approach allows us to determine the frequency of combinations of characteristics as well as to identify groups of similar federal states. Such a classification system is universal and allows us to classify not only currently existing federal states but also previous ones.

This article offers an analysis of the reasons, character and historical lessons of the 1917 revolution in Russia. A century after the fact, these issues not only remain relevant, but are in fact at the center of current theoretical and political discussions. Despite the multiplicity of conspiratorial interpretations of the Russian revolution, the defining factor in understanding its meaning remains the identification of its objective conditions, systemic contradictions, the logic of the political process in the country, and the nature of the ideas held by the leading political forces of ways to reconcile the nation’s pressing political and social transfigurations. This was the reason for the revolution’s abrupt and dramatic course. Despite all the ambiguity of the historical consequences of the Russian revolution, it became a truly epoch-making event that has had a tremendous impact on the destiny not only of Russia, but of the entire world.

A round table titled “Russian Society and State Authority after the Parliamentary Elections” was held at the end of October 2016 at Lomonosov Moscow State University; the event was jointly organized by the university’s Sociology and Psychology Program (Political Science Department), the Russian Political Science Society and the Center for Socio-Political Projects and Communications. At the round table leading experts from the fields of political science, sociology, psychology, history and journalism discussed the results of the latest Russian election campaign (for the State Duma’s VII convocation, 2016-2021); their influence on the development of the political process before Russia’s presidential election in 2018; and emerging trends in the public consciousness of the political elites and the citizenry of modern Russia.