¹ 2, 2020
Editorial note. Politeia could not gloss over this anniversary. Not only because Yuri Pivovarov is a member of our Editorial Council. Not only because he stood at the very origins of our Journal that was founded in 1996. Not only because even a decade before that, he became one of the founders of the Inter-Institute Group of Comparative and Retrospective Political Science Politeia, which gave birth to this Journal, and many other undertakings and institutions. We present this modest homage primarily because Russian Political Science as it is, let alone the Journal Politeia, would not exist if it were not for Pivovarov. Or, in any case, it would be much further away from the very idea of science. There would be much less selfless, passionate love of truth. Much less honor, dignity and nobility. The name and personality of Pivovarov have it all. He has a plethora of these personality traits, which his friends and colleagues can enjoy. The gift that we are presenting here is just a pale shadow of the many gifts we received from him.
The published work presents a collection of texts that tell us about the hero of the anniversary as well as his place in modern Russian social science community. The collection contains texts written by Mikhail Ilyin, Professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE), Head of the Center for Advanced Methodologies of Social and Humanitarian Research at the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAS); Andrei Sorokin, Director of the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History; Oksana Gaman-Golutvina, Head of the Comparative Politics Department of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Professor at NRU HSE, Presi- dent of the Russian Political Science Association; Olga Malinova, Profes- sor at NRU HSE, Senior Research Fellow at INION RAS; and Svyatoslav Kaspe, Professor at NRU HSE, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Politeia.
¹ 1, 2015
The article represents a sort of prologue to the debate about the political form as a phenomenon and as an analytical category. After the excursion into morphology and its inherent interpretations of forms (morphs, patterns, types, images etc.), as well as into the chronopolitical scheme of evolutionary morphology undertaken by the author in the first part of the paper (seePoliteia, 2014, ¹ 4), M.Ilyin starts discussing specific ideas and proposals put forward by S.Kaspe in the article “On Notion of Political Form” published in Politeia, 2012, ¹ 4. He focuses on the issues related to the conceptualization of political forms and evolutionary sequence of forms’ development.
¹ 4, 2014
The article represents a sort of prologue to the debate about the political form as a phenomenon and as an analytical category. In the first part of the article published in this issue, M.Ilyin, having briefly touched upon morphology as a special method of scientific analysis of reality, tries to answer the question of why people perceive as a phenomenon of the same order and use the same word “form” (or its analogues) to describe very dissimilar analytical tools; considers the ratio of different real political forms (plural) with an abstract political form (singular); and introduces a distinction between political form, political orders and political formulae. The first part of the article concludes with the review of the real forms, orders and formulae that existed before, exist now and are capable of existing through times and civilizational spaces of politics with the help of the scientific apparatus of evolutionary morphology.
¹ 1, 2014
The intensification of protest actions at the turn and the beginning of the second decade of this century coincided with the beginning of a new wave of political development. Protestors’ slogans and statements give reason to associate their actions with a powerful enhancement of democratization process. However, a protest cognitive scheme itself remains far from clear for protest participants. The paper proposes reconstruction of the concepts of “provocation” and “protestation” dating back to the Roman law, analyzes forms of protest such as petition, demonstration, and manifestation, investigates the internal shape of the relevant notions and the development of their political meaning as well as their influence on the formation and development of practices and institutions of accountability.
¹ 3, 2008
The article makes an attempt to look at the state from some unobvious perspectives and offer an interpretation of key aspects of its nature, that is statehood. The analysis of conceptual structures of the notions “state” and “statehood” allows the author to reveal several “natures”, or substances of the phenomenon of world politics that is generally called a state. Having shown that these substances are logically connected in the form of Aristotle’s entelechy M.Ilyin establishes the “formula of statehood”. The author considers this “formula” as purely preliminary and requiring critical analysis and empirical testing.
¹ 1, 2000
Proclaiming formally in 1990s the renunciation to the soviet model of state and the socialist values, the beginning of democratization, the ruling elites did not formulate the meaning of this process. The actual regime had no responses to the most of that challenges. The country wasn't stable in the political aspect. The legitimacy of this regime is very uncertain. It is still difficult to define what legal tradition the present regime inherited and whether it proceeded from the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union or the state formed in 1991. Russia didn't react to the challenges of the modernization and of the multipolar world. The actual key tasks should be the purposes determination and the restoration of the non-totalitarian statehood. The reinforcement of the civil society could lead to the broadening of the supreme power resources.
¹ 3, 1998
Main Page ~ Authors ~ Ilyin Mikhail