Theoretical concepts of political changes and Russian experience of the 20th century Kudelin Andrey Georgievich. Theoretical concepts of political changes and Russian experience of the 20th century Kudelin Andrey Georgievich Kudelin Andrey Georgievich director 234 school television series

• Specialty of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation23.00.01
• Number of pages 176

Chapter I. RUSSIAN OPTION OF MODERNIZATION: OPPORTUNITIES AND RESULTS

§ 1. Catch-up modernization in Russia and its crisis.

§ 2. Theoretical concepts of revolution and Russian practice.

§ 3. Totalitarianism and modernization in Russian conditions.

Chapter II. TRANSITOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND RUSSIAN REALITIES

§ 1. Stages of the socio-political evolution of Soviet society.

§ 2. Political and ideological prerequisites for perestroika.”

§ 3. Results and prospects of post-communist development of Russia.

Recommended list of dissertations

• The social and philosophical concept of liberal conservatism and its role in the spiritual revival of Russia 2004, candidate of philosophical sciences Berdin, Azat Tagirovich

• Modernization of society and the establishment of democracy in Russia 1994, candidate of political sciences Pankratov, S. A.

• The impact of global transformation challenges on the process of political modernization in Russia 2007, Doctor of Political Sciences Yashkova, Tatyana Alekseevna

• Transformations of the political systems of Eastern European countries: Using the example of Bulgaria and Poland, 1940s - early 1990s. 1999, Doctor of Political Sciences Mokshin, Vasily Kirillovich

• Post-Stalin Russia: Experience of political science modeling 2002, Doctor of Political Sciences Chervonny, Vladimir Pavlovich

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Theoretical concepts of political change and Russian experience of the 20th century”

Similar dissertations in the specialty "Political Theory, History and Methodology of Political Science", 23.00.01 code VAK

• Political modernization as a factor in the consolidation of modern Russian society 2002, Doctor of Political Sciences Matveenko, Yuri Ivanovich

• Features of the democratic process in post-Soviet Russia: 1990s. 2002, candidate of political sciences Zhogov, Roman Vladimirovich

• Russian political process: global trends and regional specifics 2006, candidate of political sciences Onoprienko, Alesya Vasilievna

• Theories and features of political modernization in Russia in the 19th - 21st centuries. 2006, Doctor of Political Sciences Matyukhin, Andrey Viktorovich

• Features of political modernization of Russia in the context of globalization processes of world social development 2006, candidate of political sciences Moskovtsev, Oleg Petrovich

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Politics Theory, History and Methodology of Political Science”, Kudelin, Andrey Georgievich

List of references for dissertation research candidate of political sciences Kudelin, Andrey Georgievich, 2003

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in a phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 ( Moscow time), except Sunday

Kudelin Andrey Georgievich. Theoretical concepts of political change and Russian experience XX century: dissertation... candidate of political sciences: 23.00.01.- St. Petersburg, 2003.- 176 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 03-23/224-5

Introduction

Chapter I. Russian version of modernization: opportunities and results

1. Catch-up modernization in Russia and its crisis.

2. Theoretical concepts of revolution and Russian practice.

3. Totalitarianism and modernization in Russian conditions

Chapter II. Transitological concepts and Russian realities

1. Stages of the socio-political evolution of Soviet society.

2. Political and ideological prerequisites for “perestroika”.

3. Results and prospects of post-communist development of Russia.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction to the work

More than ten years have passed since our country joined the process of post-communist development. Today we can already sum up some results and draw general conclusions of a theoretical and practical nature. It can be stated that modern Russia is in the process of political and socio-economic transformation. On this path, the country has already encountered considerable difficulties and, obviously, difficulties will inevitably arise in the future. It should be taken into account that the tasks facing today's Russia are in many ways similar to those that faced our country a hundred years ago. Over the past century, Russia has failed to create a stable democratic political system and an effective market economy. Achieving these goals is still linked to the future. In order to avoid mistakes made in the past, it is necessary to take a close look at the historical experience of our country.

Until now, political science analysis of Russian history has been carried out on a limited scale; the political changes that took place at its various stages have been studied without fully taking into account the approaches existing within the framework of political science. Therefore, there is a need for a more detailed identification of those features of the national political culture that influenced and influence the nature and direction of social changes throughout the entire 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.

It is very important to identify geopolitical and sociocultural factors that determine the difference between Russia both from Western and Eastern countries, as well as to study the impact of these factors on socio-political changes. It also seems very important to conduct a comparative analysis of political processes in our country on the basis of methodological approaches of such related, but not identical political science subdisciplines as the theory of modernization and transitology.

Such an analysis will help expand the heuristic capabilities of political science as a whole.

This determines the relevance of the topic of this dissertation research.

Various aspects of the problems studied in the dissertation are reflected in the works of many domestic and foreign historians, political scientists, and sociologists. Issues of political modernization of Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries are considered in the works of V.A. Achkasov, V.V. Kozlovsky, V.A. Krasilytsikov, G.L. Kupryashin, S.A. Lantsov, S.Ya. Matveeva, A. M. Migranyan, E. N. Moshchelkov, E. A. Rashkovsky, A. K. Sorokin, A. I. Utkin, D. A. Fadeev, V. G. Fedotova.

Theoretical analysis of the Russian revolution was carried out in the works of N.A. Berdyaev, K. Brinton, R. Kovalsky, S.A. Lantsov, A.N. Medushevsky, G. Meyer, E.N. Moshchelkov, R. Pipes, J. Pevzner , P.A. Sorokin, P.B. Struve, S. Huntington, S. Eisenstadt.

The problems of the genesis and development of Soviet totalitarianism are reflected in the works of N.A. Berdyaev, Z. Brzezinski, J. Boff, N. Werth, R. Pipes, E. Rashkovsky, A. N. Sakharov, K. Friedrich, F. Hayek, L.Shapiro.

Features of democratic transit in Russian conditions were studied in the works of G. Weinstein, G. Dyligensky, M. V. Ilyin, B. G. Kapustin, L. Kosals, A. Lijphart, H. Linz, A. I. Miller, A. Przeworsky , V. Sogrina, L. Shevtsova.

However, works in which a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the features of political changes at various stages of Russian history of the 20th century would be carried out. very little so far. In this regard, the purpose of this scientific work was to study the Russian historical experience of the 20th century. from the point of view of the basic theoretical concepts of political changes and, on the basis of this, identifying the specifics of political development in Russian conditions.

To achieve this goal, the author set himself the following tasks: to analyze the conditions for the formation of a model of catch-up modernization in Russian conditions and to identify the causes of its crisis; on the basis of theoretical concepts of modern political science, analyze the experience of Russian revolutions of the early 20th century; using the Russian example to show the possibilities and limitations of the totalitarian version of modernization; show and analyze the main stages of the socio-political evolution of Soviet society; identify the political and ideological prerequisites for “perestroika”; summarize and consider the prospects for post-communist development of Russia.

The methodological and theoretical basis of the dissertation research are the basic theoretical concepts of political change: the theory of modernization, the theory of revolution, modern transitological concepts.

The scientific novelty of this dissertation lies in the fact that this is one of the few scientific studies that undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of political changes and development in Russian conditions. In addition, the following can be named as the main points of scientific novelty: - the features of Russia’s modernization are shown in comparison with the countries of Western Europe and East Asia; a comparative analysis of Russian revolutions of the early 20th century was carried out on the basis of theoretical and methodological approaches of modern political science; those features of Russian political culture that significantly influence the nature and results of political changes have been identified; the author's analysis of the totalitarian model of modernization was carried out and its specificity in Russian conditions was shown; the features of the main stages of the crisis of Soviet totalitarianism are shown; the main economic, social, ideological and political prerequisites for “perestroika” are analyzed; the specificity of the manifestation of general patterns of transition from totalitarianism and authoritarianism to democracy in Russian conditions has been studied; the results of post-communist development of Russia in the political and socio-economic spheres are analyzed; forecasts are presented regarding options for further political and economic development of modern Russia.

The practical significance of the dissertation lies in the fact that its materials can be used both for further theoretical research into the political history of Russia and for determining the optimal paths for its future development. In addition, the results of the work can be used in the educational process. In secondary schools they can be used in the process of teaching a course in Russian history, in higher schools - for preparing and teaching general educational and special courses in political science and political history.

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of International Political Processes, Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University. Certain theoretical principles and conclusions of this scientific research were reflected in the author’s speeches at scientific conferences and seminars held in educational institutions in St. Petersburg.

The dissertation consists of two chapters and six paragraphs, an introduction, a conclusion and a bibliography.

Catch-up modernization in Russia and its crisis

Modernization theory is one of the main concepts of social change that emerged in social sciences over the past decades. Although, first of all, the task of this dissertation research is to identify the specifics of the political development of Russia, one should also turn to the sociological aspects of the theory of modernization, without which it is impossible to understand its political patterns.

The most common classification of social systems in modern sociological theory is the identification of traditional and modern societies as their main types. The basis for their distinction is a whole complex of characteristics: the nature of property, the peculiarity of the social structure, the nature of power, the prevailing value systems in society. The basic value that allows us to distinguish between traditional and modern societies is the readiness or, on the contrary, refusal of the social system to accept social changes or begin them. This setting corresponds to the economic, political, and ideological subsystems, which makes society integrated and holistic.

One of the first sociologists to turn to this typology was F. Tönnies, who identified two specific forms of social organization: community (Gemeinschaft) - a traditional community, and society (Gesellschaft) - a modern, complexly structured community. His works influenced the research of many sociologists who worked after him, such as E. Durkheim, M. Weber, T. Parsons.

The theory of social action of Max Weber is most significant for identifying differences between traditional and modern society. By social action, M. Weber understood the characteristic features of people’s behavior in a variety of spheres - in production, in everyday life, in politics. All social institutions and relationships are ultimately the result of social action. M. Weber identified four types of such action: traditional, affective, value-rational and goal-rational. The differences between the listed types of social action are determined by the motives that determine people’s behavior and the degree to which they are aware of the goals of their actions (25, p.628).

Traditional social action is based on following habitual stereotypes of behavior, and in this case a person often does not think about the appropriateness of his actions and remains at the mercy of traditions that fetter his personal initiative. The affective type of social action is characterized by the predominance of purely psychological motivation under the influence of external stimuli. In contrast, the value-rational type of social action presupposes the presence of conscious motives of behavior. In this case, people determine their goals and objectives on the basis of the provisions of religious doctrines, ethical principles, and the postulates of any political ideology.

The highest type of social action, according to M. Weber, is goal-oriented social action. This action of the subject is aimed at achieving predetermined goals. These goals are achieved with the help of means that are rational in nature, such as natural scientific and social scientific knowledge, formal legal norms, using, if necessary, equipment and technology (25, p. 629).

Let's compare traditional and goal-oriented types of social action based on following example. Peasants for many centuries, in a variety of countries, cultivated the land, raised livestock and, ultimately, produced a variety of agricultural products. They did this on the basis of production experience, skills and primitive “technologies” that they learned from their parents, and they, in turn, from representatives of older generations. The peasant was unable to change the established order of things, and did not think about the meaning of his actions. He simply existed in accordance with the rules established once and for all. Village life peasant life have remained almost unchanged for centuries. Chinese peasant in the middle of the 20th century. used exactly the same tools and methods of farming that his distant ancestors used two thousand years ago. This type of social action can be called traditional.

Farmers in European countries or North America today also engaged in food and agricultural production industrial crops. But they do it completely differently than peasants in the past. The farmer consciously chooses the specialization of his farm depending on natural and climatic conditions, market conditions, i.e. based on rational choice. In the process of achieving selected goals - production certain types agricultural products in given volumes - the farmer uses economic, agronomic, and technical knowledge that is rational in nature, uses agrotechnical techniques developed on the basis of scientific recommendations and generalization of the practical experience of many farms. Rational motivation both in defining goals and in choosing means of their implementation is undoubted here, therefore such activity can well be called goal-oriented social action.

Traditional society is characterized by the dominance of the traditional type of social action, that is, action that is based not on rational consciousness and choice, but on following a once accepted habitual attitude. Traditional society is, first of all, an agrarian society. The overwhelming majority of its population lives in rural areas and is engaged in primitive agricultural labor and crafts based on simple reproduction. Traditional society is characterized by a closed social structure, which excludes vertical and horizontal social mobility, and the low individual status of the majority of its members. Religious consciousness dominates here in all spheres of life, and political power is authoritarian in nature. Traditional society is weakly receptive to innovation and is stagnant by its very nature.

Totalitarianism and modernization in Russian conditions

However new model inherited some features of all previous attempts to modernize Russia. Actually, Russia was the first country in the world to encounter the very phenomenon of modernization in its modern form. But even the first attempt to implement it, undertaken by Peter I, was inconsistent and represented only a limited borrowing of advanced Western European experience in certain areas (military affairs, education, industry), and the transfer of some Western institutions to Russian soil. But at the same time they remained, and sometimes strengthened public relations, eliminated in Western Europe already during the first phases of industrial-capitalist development. Therefore, not a single attempt to overcome backwardness and stand on a par with the advanced countries under the tsarist autocracy was crowned with complete success.

The post-revolutionary history of Russia and the Soviet Union was no exception. True, the significant difference was that in this case modernization took place under “socialist” slogans, with promises of a “bright future”, while the socialist ideas and values ​​themselves were distorted and primitivized to the limit. “Stalin,” historian V. Loginov rightly notes, “having identified socialism with socialization, and socialization with nationalization, he began to measure the very stages of the construction of socialism by the level of this nationalization. The criteria for “socialism” have also acquired a very specific numerical expression - in tons of coal and oil, steel and cast iron produced, in kilometers of construction railways, in meters of fabric and pounds of bread. And when nationalization was basically completed, and tons and meters reached the level of production of world powers, Stalin had no choice but to announce the “complete victory of socialism”” (88, p. 97).

In a relatively short period of time, Russia, which previously lagged behind the advanced countries in almost all positions, achieved (as in its time during the period of Peter’s reforms) in some areas, if not leadership, then, in any case, parity with them. But this was not, even in purely technical and economic terms, a comprehensive and harmonious development, especially if we take into account the price that the Stalinist USSR had to pay for its successes. At the same time, it should be noted that the social system created under the guise of “socialism” was, in a sense, “perfect.” For example, the totalitarian political regime relied on a completely nationalized, command economy, which resulted in its greater stability compared to right-wing totalitarian regimes of the fascist type. For certain extreme conditions - preparation for war or the war itself - the Stalinist model was even to some extent ideal, since it made it possible to solve enormous problems in short time, although at a very high price.

Even though modernization was not completed everywhere and was largely deformed, the USSR became an industrial state with great military and economic potential. However, these successes also had their downsides. The created system was aimed at performing limited tasks, but did not have sufficient mechanisms for self-development. This became especially noticeable when the technological revolution began to unfold and the developed countries of the West came very close to the threshold of a post-industrial society.

By Marxist standards, post-industrial society was nothing more than the coveted “highest phase of the communist formation.” Even when not fantastic, but real material and technical prerequisites for the post-industrial stage of social development appeared, “real socialism” and its main outpost - the Soviet Union - were struck by a deep crisis. First of all, he touched on the economy. It turned out that the “advanced formation itself” cannot assimilate and implement modern technological achievements. Moreover, it turned out to be untenable in the broadest economic sense. Attempts to find a solution to the problems that arose during the period of “perestroika” resulted in the collapse of the totalitarian communist system itself. It can be stated that the post-revolutionary history of the country has ended, its circle has closed and the same boundaries have emerged with which it began.

Let us summarize some general results of the historical experience of modernization in Russia both in the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods of its history. Firstly, it is necessary to clearly understand the uniqueness of Russia’s geopolitical position and its associated sociocultural and civilizational specificity. In our opinion, for many centuries to come the features of development Russian state determined that its formation began in the “depths of the Eastern European continental space, away from the main European cultural centers and in isolation from the most important transport communications. Quite early, the Moscow state lost the main source from which it drew scientific knowledge, experience and examples of cultural values. This source was the Byzantine Empire, which collapsed under the pressure of the conquerors. Having turned out to be the only independent Orthodox state in the world, which also included within its borders a huge, sparsely populated and inaccessible Eurasian space, Russia acquired features that sharply distinguished it from all other countries. It was not and could not be in its pure form either “East”, or “West”, or “Europe”, or “Asia”. This circumstance influenced all attempts to reform Russian society over the past centuries.

Methodological basis The study of political processes that have determined the current state of Russian society is transitology. This discipline, or more precisely, a subdiscipline within the framework of political science, has taken shape in recent decades.

Transitology is closely related to the theory of political modernization. They are close in theoretical and methodological terms (the commonality of the categorical apparatus and methodological approaches) and at the personal level (many prominent political scientists are known for their work in both areas of political science). But if the theory of political modernization focuses on the problems of developing countries of the Third World, then the focus of transitology is on political processes in states where the basic structures of modern society have already taken shape, and in some cases we are talking about re-democratization. For the first time, the problems of democratization of countries that already had experience of existing democratic regimes arose in post-war years due to the need to overcome the legacy of totalitarian fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, and to eliminate the consequences of authoritarianism and militarism in Japan. These countries were already industrially developed, and in Germany and Italy, before the fascists came to power, political regimes of a democratic type existed for several decades. Later, similar problems arose in the countries of Southern Europe - Spain, Portugal and Greece, where, after a period of authoritarian rule, a return to democratic principles began. At the same time, Latin American countries were experiencing similar changes, where military dictatorships also began to give way to democratically elected governments. And here, too, the point was about a return to democracy, and not about its establishment anew, as in most Afro-Asian countries.

The main forms of transition from authoritarianism to democracy, in accordance with established ideas in political science, can be: evolution, revolution, military conquest. Evolution presupposes the gradual implementation of democratic reforms without a sharp change in the ruling elite. Revolution is a quick and radical change of political regime. Military conquest is characterized by the “implantation” of democracy from the outside, after the military defeat of a totalitarian or authoritarian regime under conditions of military occupation. This was the case after the end of the Second World War in Japan and Germany, where the foundations of political democracy were laid under the conditions of post-war occupation.

From the point of view of the durability and irreversibility of the results, the already mentioned S. Huntington identified three models of transition to democracy.

Firstly, a linear or classical model, an example of which could be the development of Great Britain, as well as countries Northern Europe. This model is characterized by a consistent solution to the problems of democratization, ensuring its irreversibility. Classic model transition to democracy is a process of gradual transformation of traditional political power, expanding the rights and freedoms of citizens, increasing the degree of their political participation.

A unique indicator showing the degree of progress of a country along the path of democratization is the role and place of the legislative branch (parliament) in the structure of political institutions of society. Upon completion of this process, that is, when a stable democratic system is created, the institutions of parliamentary democracy become its most important and integral part. It doesn’t matter what form of state and the corresponding model of separation of powers takes place, the main thing is that parliament ensures the representation of the interests of all social groups existing in society had a real impact on political decision-making. Where the formation of parliamentary democracy occurred without revolutionary upheavals, it was, as a rule, smooth and gradual. An example is the most stable democratic states of our time - the countries of Northern Europe. In each of them, it took about a hundred years to establish the principles of parliamentarism and form democratic electoral systems. Thus, in Norway, the parliament (Storting) was created in 1814, the principles of parliamentarism in the political system were established in 1884, suffrage for men was introduced in 1898, and for women in 1913. In Sweden, the Riksdag in its current form appeared in 1809, twice - in 1866 and in 1974. - was significantly reorganized, suffrage became universal for men in 1909, for women - in 1921. The situation was somewhat different in Denmark, where parliament first appeared in 1834. Universal suffrage for the male part of the population was very quickly established there - in 1849, but women received it only in 1915. Similar trends are revealed in the political development of Iceland (see: 203).

For all of the above countries, the gradualism and consistency of democratic changes ensured their subsequent political stability.

Secondly, the cyclical model. The identification of this model was initially based on a generalization of the experience of Latin American countries. In many of these states, the first attempts at transition to democracy were made in the 19th century, immediately after liberation from Spanish colonial rule. However, in most Latin American countries stable democratic regimes have not developed. Democratic rule was often interrupted by military coups and the establishment of military dictatorships, but there were also frequent cases of authoritarian degeneration of civilian regimes. Periods of authoritarianism were followed by periods of democratization and vice versa. This cyclical development was a consequence of the fact that the transition to democracy in Latin American countries was not supported by adequate socio-economic and socio-cultural factors. Since the 60s. XX century The sad Latin American experience was repeated by many newly emerging states of Asia and Africa, in which periods of democratic and authoritarian rule constantly replaced each other.

Results and prospects of post-communist development of Russia

Since the mid-70s. The global process of the collapse of anti-democratic regimes began to gain momentum, covering almost all continents and regions of the globe. S. Huntington called this process the “third wave of democratization.” The “first wave of democratization,” in his opinion, covered a period of more than a hundred years from 1820 to 1926. and affected many countries of the European and American continents. Since 1926, the year of the final establishment of the fascist dictatorship of Mussolini in Italy, a return or “reverse” wave begins, characterized by a reduction in the number of democracies and an increase in the number of totalitarian and authoritarian ones. political regimes. Since 1942, that is, from the turning point of the Second World War, the “second wave of democratization” begins, which, according to Huntington, lasted until 1962. Then again follows a rollback, marked by a long chain of military coups in Latin America, Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece, 1967) countries. The “third wave of democratization” begins with democratic changes, first in the countries of Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece), and then in the countries of Latin America and East Asia.

The culmination of the “third wave of democratization” was the collapse at the turn of the 80-90s. seemingly unshakable communist regimes in the Soviet Union and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. From this moment on, the processes of post-communist development become the main object of study of what has formed into a relatively independent scientific discipline transitology.

Initially, the problems of the formation of democratic regimes in former socialist countries were studied on the basis of approaches traditional to the theory of political modernization and transitological concepts. The prospects for the establishment of new economic and political institutions in post-communist countries were assessed based on the experience of post-totalitarian and post-authoritarian development in Germany, Italy, the countries of Southern Europe, and Latin America.

Over time, the opinions of Western political scientists studying post-communist transition processes have become divided. Some, including, for example, such famous scientists as A. Lijphart and F. Schmitter, believe that the processes taking place today in the countries of Eastern Europe and in post-Soviet space, with all their specificity, are still an analogue of the processes and events that took place in other regions affected by the “third wave of democratization.”

There is another point of view. American political scientist S. Terry believes that the problems facing post-communist countries have at least five differences from the problems in countries that have previously made the transition from totalitarianism and authoritarianism to democracy. The first difference stems from the fact that post-communist countries are trying to simultaneously create a market economy and a pluralistic democracy. Until now, no authoritarian or totalitarian system has known such a degree of nationalization of the economy as in communist states. The desire to simultaneously create a market economy and a stable democratic system generates internal inconsistency of the post-communist transition. Although in the long-term historical perspective democracy and the market complement and strengthen each other, at the current stage of reform of the former socialist states they come into conflict with each other. It occurs according to the following scheme: radical economic reforms lead to a serious decline in the living standards of the population; the hardships of the initial stage of transition to the market give rise to political instability, which makes it difficult to create the legal and institutional foundations for further

economic reforms, hinders the attraction of foreign investment, contributes to the continuation of the economic recession, and the economic recession, in turn, increases political tension in society.

The second difference also concerns the socio-economic sphere. In countries that were at a lower level of economic and industrial development, during the transition to democracy, the task was to create new industries National economy. And post-communist states were faced with the need to completely dismantle a significant part of the already existing industrial sectors while simultaneously radically restructuring and modifying many industries.

The third difference is related to the high ethnic heterogeneity of post-communist countries. This leads to the spread of nationalist sentiments. Nationalism in any of its forms, as a rule, is poorly compatible with democracy, since it emphasizes the superiority of some nations over others, thereby splitting society along ethno-national lines and preventing the emergence of a genuine civil society.

S. Terry associates the fourth difference between post-communist and post-authoritarian transition processes with the problems of civil society. From her point of view, the application of this concept to the current realities of Eastern Europe and the former USSR in general is very doubtful. Civil society presupposes not only the existence of political and public organizations, but also their ability to interact within certain boundaries. Without the presence of such institutionally formalized boundaries, without the willingness of public groups and leaders to follow the generally accepted rules of the game, paralysis of the political system is possible. In post-communist countries there are serious obstacles to the formation of a real civil society. On the one hand, in most of these countries, before the establishment of communist regimes, there existed only elements of civil society, very far from its mature forms. On the other hand, real political practice, opposition groups and political experience recent years Communist authorities did not contribute to the formation of ideas about politics as the “art of the possible.” Political life is fragmented and overly personalized, confrontation still prevails over compromise, and the electorate remains alienated and confused.

S. Terry sees the fifth difference in post-communist development in international conditions. They are less favorable than they were for Germany and Italy in the post-war years, or for southern European countries in the 70s. Today, post-communist countries do not receive proper help and support.

From the point of view of another American researcher V. Varne, in Eastern Europe, unlike, for example, Latin America, we are not talking about a return to democracy. In the East, the rule of law and other democratic institutions are not being restored, as was the case in other countries, but are being created almost anew. The situation is similar in the economic sphere, where new system, rather than modifying an existing one.