This article offers an interpretation of the events of the year 1917 as a sort of a counterrevolution. I.Glebova thinks that the decline of autocracy that was absolutely evident in the epoch of Nicholas II meant its deviation from monosubjectiveness, escape from the violent, despotic complex. At the same time the traditional algorithm of governing, that is the fusion of power and a person, was changing. Drawing a distinctive line between a person and power implied filling the power space with the law procedures. The revolution in the sphere of power occurred, within which the latter was transformed by the European example. It was high time autocracy had had to become more modern regarding its form as well as its content, and the last monarch, although being intuitively against it, materialized that tendency. The weakness of Nicholas’ power (by the Russian standards) did not foretell an inevitable death of the autocratic system. On the contrary, it provided a chance for its transformation. The revolution against the power buried this very chance having destroyed monarchy as well as the society at large in the forms they had existed by February 1917. The construction of the new power took place under the hardest pressure of the archaic public ideas, or in the direction being opposite towards that of Nicholas.
The article explains the necessity of the political course based on modernization and innovative development and examines the challenges that our society is going to face given that it actually heads for this course. According to A.Galkin, all these problems are tractable, but their solutions require a “well-prepared siege” implying the core qualitative reforms rather than a “mounted attack”. The author concludes, for the transformation to the innovative development to become possible it is crucial that the political factor is organically included in this process. It is also of no less importance to create social and political institutions that can provide for the ultimate success of the undertaken efforts. This is the only chance for the innovative development to become real rather than virtual.
The article is devoted to the analysis of the specificity of the “corruption” concept in the modern Russian society. After emphasizing those practices that the mass consciousness marks as corruption and analyzing the stable stereotypes that determine different social groups’ attitudes towards corruption actions, E.Leontyeva draws the conclusion that the process of corruption becoming an acute social problem is a symptom of more fundamental processes tied to the deep crisis of the “imagined community” rather than a diagnosis. Under such conditions when the concepts of “state”, “the people”, “nation” are becoming unclear and no longer can serve as the efficient social integrators, the social practices based on the personal ties, friendship, kinship, etc. appear to be much more successive than those institutionally approved. Therefore, one intends to reduce the “big” community and its communication forms to the “small” one, within which corruption is not being perceived and traced by the participants of the cooperation. The author posits it is this process that accounts for the ambivalent perception of the very phenomenon of corruption.
The article reveals the reasons of the cognitive dissonance appearing in the process of the political communication between the federal center and the Russian Far East. As L.Blyakher demonstrates, when the concepts used within the discourses are the same, their semantic meanings are different. The emergence of this gap is related to the radical reorientation of the region towards the Asian “gates into the global world” in the 1990s and de facto realization of the regime of the “free trade zone” (porto franco). Since this process occurred in the informal sphere and was not reflected in the official statistics, it stayed unnoticed by the central federal structures. The federal center’s aspiration of the last years to use the transit opportunities of the region came into collision with the already existing practices that are already partly legitimized in the framework of the regional government. Viewing such legitimization (perceived by the center as the “overall corruptness” of the region) as an instrument of the alternative social integration, Blyakher analyzes opportunities and risks of the assimilation of the alternative social networks by the state.
The article examines the activity of the deliberative organs as a representation channel of the different social groups’ interests. Having conducted the comparative analysis of 26 Russian regions, A.Tarasenko discusses factors exerting influence over the efficiency of the public chambers created under the regional power structures. Having tested the impact of the political, socio-cultural and procedural factors, the author concludes that further evolution of the deliberative organs will heavily hinge upon the extent and direction of the state influence. The efficiency of the deliberative organs is nothing without the state support and participation, but such participation and support can be at any moment transformed into the institutional restrictions.
The author of the article proposes the hypothesis that the Russian economy has a somewhat inherent fundamental flaw that not only prevents it from the normal development, but also is the main cause of many problems in the country’s social life that do not seem to be directly correlated with the economic sphere. V.Marakhanov states that its drawback is the lack of the efficient system of the added value production. Having traced in detail the history of the Russian economic development back to the existence of the USSR, the author sheds light on the fact that this system being destroyed during the Soviet years was not restored within the transformation period towards the market economy and analyzes the relevant and possible implications of such situation.
Having analyzed the works by the US researchers, I.Papkova demonstrates that such discipline that we can call for convenience “religion in the international relations” is still undergoing the stage of development. A lot of methodological and theoretical problems stay unsolved; the subject of the research has not been clearly defined yet. However, emphasizing the no less obvious progress in studying this filed that had been made in the US within the last 10 years the author concludes that all the necessary prerequisites for the further fruitful development of the new discipline have been generated.
The article conducts the comprehensive analysis of the US “think tanks” as specific institutions providing services to the policy process through the socio-political application studies and preparation of the recommendations for decision-makers. In contrast with the broadly accepted interpretation of the US model as being “clean”, that is not burdened with the national specificity and therefore being applicable to any social system, the author employs a multimodel approach viewing “think tanks” as organizations possessing not only institutional, but also regional as well as national specialty.
In the article opening the selection of materials prepared within the 3-year project of the INDEM Foundation Judicial System in Russia: Institutional-Societal Analysis of Transformation, Verification of Results, Determination of Prospects G.Satarov describes the Foundation specialists’ approach towards the analysis of the transformation of the judicial power, the object and content of their study and draw some overall conclusions. According to the Foundation’s experts, the judicial reform in Russia is not finished yet and requires continuation based on new grounds. In order to accomplish real changes in the organization and activity of the judicial power, it is necessary to conduct core reforms not only within this very sphere, but also within other forms of existence of the Russian society and state.
The article presents the results of the comparative analysis of the judicial reform in 5 transit countries (Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan) and Chili. The comparison was conducted on the base of the expert questionnaires as well as comprehensive reports prepared by these countries’ experts following the scheme elaborated by the INDEM Foundation specialists. Comparing the experience of the countries in question, E.Mishina was trying to find an answer whether the problems that our country is facing in the process of the judicial power transformation are exclusive features of Russia, or they emerge everywhere where one of the basic state institutions is undergoing change and reveal the factors contributing to or preventing success of the judicial reform.
M.Krasnov in his work lays out the precise suggestions how to improve the normative regulation of the judicial power activity elaborated within the project Judicial System in Russia: Institutional-Societal Analysis of Transformation, Verification of Results, Determination of Prospects.
Reflecting upon the processes occurring in the Irish society together with the authors of the monograph under review, M.Orlova totally agrees with their conclusion: the “Green Island” is still far from the end of its history – as well as the whole world having found itself within the black streak of the deep crisis.