№ 1, 2018
Hybrid regimes, which combine democratic institutions, to some extent cosmetic, with real authoritarian relations and orders, strikingly differ in their stability. Under such regimes the non-institutionalized conflict dynamics becomes crucial, because power issues are not solved through open political competition during elections. The article sketches a model of interaction between The Regime and The Protest, which includes 10 postulates on the basis of the results of the synthesis studies. The author shows that if these postulates are correct, a sufficiently flexible hybrid regime, which is able to adapt, inevitably slips to neo-totalitarianism in accordance with the principle of a ratchet mechanism. Neo-totalitarian practices, as well as the relationship between bureaucratic institutions and neo-patrimonial orders, were shown to exert an ambiguous influence upon the stability of hybrid regimes.
Some modern hybrid regimes are quite stable (post-revolutionary Iran, Kazakhstan under Nursultan Nazarbayev, Russia under Vladimir Putin, etc.). There are also regimes characterized by the intermittent and unstable dynamics (Russia in the 1990s, Egypt after Tahrir, Venezuela after Hugo Chavez’ death, etc.). Each of these cases provides an empirical basis for testing the presented model. In its turn, this model opens up opportunities for analyzing reasons for the success and failure of the regime and protest strategies, for explaining the significant diversity in the nature and stability of the regimes, for identifying the conditions, scale and effects of neo-totalitarian practices and institutions, and for monitoring socio-political dynamics and predicting its trajectories.
№ 3, 2016
Recognizing the validity of many statements made by liberal publicists, who sharply criticize geopolitics in the form, in which it has established itself in the modern Russian political rhetoric, N.Rozov, however, suggests that a significant portion of criticism against geopolitics as a direction of thought and sphere of public interest is explained not only by the prevalence of notorious far-right-wing authors, who have seized this “realm”, but also by the indistinctive meanings of the term itself. The author identifies four such meanings – geopolitics as reality; geopolitics as a scientific discipline; geopolitics as a doctrine (worldview, paradigm); geopolitics as ideology (and propaganda). He analyzes their content and shows that, with respect to the first two meanings, the criticism is misplaced. The author reveals the importance of the geopolitical dynamics for understanding the ongoing processes in the world through the evaluation of Russia’s current foreign policy strategies on the basis of the principles set out by R.Collins.
№ 2, 2015
The article develops methodological and ontological ideas aimed at integrating the until now separated approaches of social cognition. The author focuses on identifying causes of crises and major historical transformations in different social and temporal scopes and within different fields of interaction. By means of several system models (the universal model of historical dynamics, A.Stinchcombe’s functional model etc.) and synthesis of the basic concepts of human behavior (theory of rituals byE.Durkheim, E.Goffmann, and R.Collins; conception of attitudes and habitus; the operant conditioning model by B.F.Skinner), N.Rozov shows ways of combining statistical macro-indicators (structure) and dynamics of interaction between actors (agency). In this context, the author considers the possibilities of including the factor of randomness into the strict logic of scientific explanation in C.Hempel’s interpretation; conceptualizes connection between headline-making “trigger” events, turning points and the preceding and subsequent quantitative and structural changes.
№ 4, 2012
In the article the author discusses the most important philosophical and political questions regarding the potential renewal of the Russian constitution. Being confident that the elaboration of alternative versions of the Basic law should be conducted without looking back at the possible distribution of political forces that will occur by the moment of constitution review, N.Rozov proposes and justifies doctrine of civil-state partnership contrasting it with the extreme versions of etatism, liberalism and “life arrangement”.
№ 3, 2010
Having analyzed the trajectories of the Russian social development in the framework of the two-dimensional model “freedom-success”, N.Rozov concludes that the persistent repetition of cycles and patterns indicates that the same deep social mechanism is being reproduced. The author argues that cycles in Russia are largely determined by the fact that due to the specificity of the Russian mentality and institutions in times of disunity and crisis almost all sides opt for an authoritarian path of coercion viewing it as the only possible method of consolidation and restoration of the order. Since other forms of maintaining accountability and national solidarity are not developed, weakening of coercive tools leads to the beginning of the social degradation, increasing disunity and crisis. Such swings encourage even to a greater extent the entrenchment of the mentality and institutions’ specificity already mentioned above, strengthening of deep cultural archetypes and therefore, cycles repeat themselves with the historical path becoming deeper.
Main Page ~ Authors ~ Rozov Nikolai