Features of the political development of Bangladesh.

Swagato Kinkor Majumder (Bangladesh)

In various civilizations, political and cultural development proceeds in a very peculiar way, and sometimes with a different political attitude and perception. The category "civilization" reflects the uniqueness of a particular national-cultural, historical tradition, its specific content, ways of transmission and impact on the image of society and man. It is characterized by a certain cultural relativism, a refusal to arrange societies according to the stages of progress, a shift of attention to the structures of cultural tradition.

In civilization, it is customary to distinguish four subsystems: biosocial, economic, political and cultural (the area of ​​symbols, values, norms that ensure communication between people).

The initial priority of the state over society is a characteristic feature of the political mentality of Eastern civilizations. To it should be added the special stability in the East of social, ethnic and political traditions, which draw their strength in millennial cultures and religions, as well as the specific attitude of the "Eastern man" to the world of politics. In other words, in comparison with the West, civil society in the East began to form later, this process continues today, its impact on the state is comparatively weaker, and the role of traditional political culture in the states of the East is very significant.

A certain amendment should be made to the well-established idea of ​​Eastern cultures as exclusively socially collectivist, and Western cultures as exclusively individualistic. Both of these principles are inherent in any significant culture and politics, but they are expressed and manifested with different intensities. Equally, one should be more careful about the unconditional identification of the socially oriented market economy and market relations inherent in post-industrial development and modernization with pluralistic political democracy and individualism. If in the West a socially oriented economy and established democracy were based on the values ​​of individualism and rationality, then in the East these same values ​​were based mainly on collectivist principles and values.

The experience of modern successful modernization of a number of Eastern countries showed that changes in them began not with “liberalization of the state, as it was, at least according to the theory, in the West, but in conditions when the state acted as an initiating force, organizer of actions and events. that made the processes of establishing market values ​​and relations in the economy irreversible ”. At the same time, all the modernizing states of the East basically managed to preserve the basic cultural values, the established dominants of power relations.

The experience of post-industrial modernization of a number of Eastern states shows that its success is due to the preservation of traditional political and cultural value orientations, the unity of the nation, coordinated actions of the ruling elite (or elites), the active functioning of authoritarian or liberal-authoritarian regimes that promote the development of modern market relations in line with national and civilized priorities. In these states, it was possible to put forward a national idea that united the overwhelming majority of the people on the basis of respect for traditional cultural and political values ​​and active inclusion in world market and information relations. It was the preservation of traditional values ​​and orientations that allowed the countries of the East to master many of the achievements of the Western technogenic civilization, without being Westernized in the literal sense of the word, to modernize economically, preserving and developing their identity.

As an independent state, the Republic of Bangladesh has existed for less than 30 years. For such a short period by historical standards, neither the masses of the population, nor even the elite of the country were able to acquire any experience of living in democratic conditions, especially since the entire previous history of East Bengal included democratic elements only at the lowest level of the state pyramid: at the level of the village self-government in the form of panchayats - councils from selected elders.

By the time Bangladesh gained independence in 1971, stable democracies of the Western type had long developed in the world with their characteristic features: civil society, recognition of the priority of human rights over the interests of the state, guarantees of political freedoms, secularism and religious tolerance, separation of powers, the existence of political parties and opposition, respect for the rights of minorities, etc.

The development of democratic institutions in Western countries (as well as in Japan) was inseparable from economic, scientific and technological progress; moreover, these institutions were a guarantee and a necessary condition for the highest achievements of these countries in all areas of human activity. Therefore, it is quite natural and justified that the founders of Bangladesh turned to the tested models of a democratic system: to the constitutions of the largest Western countries - the USA, France, Germany, as well as to the state structure of the former metropolis - Great Britain, based to a large extent on the tradition (but having the force of law): "The form of government under the Constitution of Bangladesh is British-style parliamentary government."

It must be admitted that the Constitution of Bangladesh, developed taking into account Western experience, meets all the requirements for the structure of a modern society of “Western civilization” and complies with the fundamental documents of the UN, including the “Declaration of Human Rights” and “Covenants on Human Rights”.

The very procedure for the development and adoption of the Constitution provided a very encouraging example, on the one hand, of the unity and moral upsurge of the nation and, on the other hand, of democratic lawmaking: the Constitutional Assembly, which consisted of 403 elected representatives in the National Assembly of Pakistan from Bangladesh (then still from Eastern Bengal) and the provincial assemblies of this territory, elected a committee of 34 members to draft a constitution, taking into account 98 mandates received from voters; the development, discussion and adoption of the Constitution lasted almost 7 months in 1972. As a result, the Constitution is a well-structured document with thoughtful wording, covering all forms of state activity that were foreseeable at that time and leaving the possibility of their further improvement as the need arises.

The Constitution of Bangladesh provided for a British-style parliamentary republic with a Cabinet appointed and accountable to Parliament. One of the considerations in favor of this decision was the experience of governing British India during the colonial period. This experience, despite its natural limitations, was nevertheless considered worthy of use in the state building of the new republic.

The presidential form of government was rejected by the Constitutional Assembly as fraught with conflicts between the executive and the legislature, “which could seriously damage our infant democracy”; therefore, the President of the country, being elected by the Parliament and being the Head of State, was obliged to act “on the advice” of the Government. (Note that the fears of the authors of the Constitution about conflicts between various branches of government later turned into a harsh reality during the periods of military rule under the conditions of the Presidential Republic).

Unlike most leading Western countries, Bangladesh's Constitution provides for a unicameral Parliament of 330 members (including reserved seats for 30 women). Given the relatively high degree of ethnic homogeneity of the population and the virtual absence of separatist movements in the provinces, the Republic of Bangladesh was proclaimed a unitary state.

According to the Constitution, suffrage is granted to all Bangladeshi citizens who have reached the age of 18, regardless of property status, education, caste, class, gender and religion. For a country where 70–75% of the population is illiterate, this is certainly a bold decision.

So, the beginning of the democratic development of Bangladesh was marked by the adoption of a completely modern Constitution, created “in the image and likeness” of the constitutions of developed Western democracies.

Unfortunately, the further development of Bangladesh has become very uneven.

The colonial past and economic backwardness, the state of humiliation and depression in which East Bengal was part of Pakistan, the ruin during the War of Independence and the political immaturity of the elite - all this prevented the roots of democracy from taking root, the emergence of a positive consciousness and systematic work to develop democratic institutions. Political parties and groups that rallied at the time of national threat and patriotic upsurge in 1971-1972, moved on to rivalry and political struggle for power using openly demagogic methods, appealing not to reason, but to fears, emotions, instincts and prejudices of the population , mostly illiterate and politically inexperienced. As a result, the parliamentary form of government provided for by the Constitution turned out to be compromised, unable to either solve the country's economic problems or ensure internal stability in society. As the prominent Islamic publicist Shamsul Alam wrote with bitterness: “Parliament is certainly a representative body. But members of Parliament are not always the true representatives of the people. ” In 1975, on the initiative of Sheikh Mujibur, an amendment to the Constitution was adopted, establishing a presidential form of government.

Soon a period of instability, widespread corruption, rigged elections (“electoral robbery”), coups and counter-coups began, culminating in the coming to power of the military. As a result, over the period of development that has elapsed since 1972 to the present, Bangladesh has been under the authoritarian rule of the military for 15 years - 6 years under General Z. Rahman (1975-1981) and 9 years under General Ershad (1982-1990). ). These years have caused significant damage to the still nascent democratic institutions, from which the country has not recovered until now. With regard to the economy, the rule of the military has not been accompanied by any progress in this area, despite the increasing direct intervention of the military in all spheres of the country's life to the detriment of the prerogatives of Parliament.

Bangladesh's electoral history since gaining independence has undergone many upheavals: Parliament was dissolved and elected 13 times under various electoral rules imposed under military pressure.

The quality of the parliamentary corps declined from election to election, which was reflected, for example, in the adoption by the Second Parliament of an amendment to the Constitution imposed by the military on the replacement of the principle of secularism with the provision of "absolute faith in the omnipotence of Allah."

Electoral violations - corruption, ballot fraud, deception and intimidation of voters - have become widespread. Thus, it was announced that 72% of the electorate took part in the referendum designed to legitimize the presidency of General Ershad, of which 94% voted in favor of Ershad (which in itself is characteristic only of totalitarian rule, while according to independent local and foreign observers in no more than 15-20% of the total electorate took part in the referendum The results of the “referendum” made the worst impression on world public opinion.

Considering the political development of Bangladesh after the adoption of the 1972 Constitution, a number of its features should be noted. First of all, despite all the abuses of the military regimes and violations of electoral procedures that took place during this period, the Constitution remained a document with which any government was forced to verify its activities. No military government dared to abolish the Constitution or change it without passing these changes through Parliament, even if only formally.

This indicates that the concept of some minimum democratic norms, which the authorities cannot ignore under any circumstances, have already become entrenched in the public consciousness.

At all stages of the period under review, the political life of Bangladesh retained a multi-party system and legal opposition.

It was the attempt to remove the opposition from participation in political life and, ultimately, the threat of strangling the opposition by the Ershad regime that provoked an explosion of indignation in society and mass protests. These actions were of a non-violent nature, but it was their universality that led to the paralysis of power, the resignation of Ershad and the restoration of democratic rule.

This means that at all the costs of the functioning of a multi-party system in a poorly structured society - such as, for example, populism, excessive emotionality, the tendency of parties to express not so much interests as their worldview and way of life, vagueness or, more precisely, the universality of slogans, throwing and ambitious leaders - with all this, the ideas of tolerance, pluralism of opinions, discussion, coexistence have become an integral part of the political life in Bangladesh. The multiparty system, perhaps even too high (in the 1997 parliamentary elections, candidates from 119 parties and movements participated) sharply distinguishes Bangladesh from among developing countries, especially Muslim ones, in most of which one-party systems dominate.

Even the repressive activities of the military regimes in Bangladesh took relatively moderate forms.

This statement, of course, can only be true in comparison, for example, with a series of military coups and revolutions in other Muslim countries, such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, which took place at about the same time period. The regimes that succeeded each other in these countries were characterized by massive repressions against tens of thousands of people, the organization of powerful special services, the creation of total control over the behavior of people and the complete suppression of any dissent.

The pre-election struggle in Bangladesh is often accompanied by riots and even bloody clashes, intimidation and disorientation of voters, but no military regime has created any well-thought-out system of state, total suppression. The noted excesses should rather be attributed to the consequences of the "crowd effect", its uncontrollability, a manifestation of a low culture of political behavior.

This testifies to the existence in Bangladeshi society of a fairly persistent tradition of tolerance and respect for a different opinion, of the sanity and non-aggressive mentality of the Bengali people. These features of the worldview, historically characteristic to one degree or another of the Bengali people, oppose (and so far successfully) the totalitarian tradition of the Muslim version of "Eastern civilization."

While democracy is generally recognized in principle, there is still no national consensus in Bangladesh on the specific form of implementation of a democratic system: parliamentary or presidential.

Historically, the presidential form of government was introduced and supported by the military, and 15 years of their rule compromised this form in the eyes of the majority (but not all!) Of Bangladesh society. At the same time, it is known that for the first time, in amending the Constitution, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the generally recognized leader of the Bengali people, who led the struggle for independence, introduced this form of government. The reason for such an initiative on his part was the weakness of the first parliament, mired in endless disputes, discussions, intrigues, grouping and demagoguery.

The ongoing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of either form of government reflects a lack of political experience and a lack of stable traditions of democratic governance. The arguments used by the parties in these disputes are very similar to those presented in discussions on the same topic in Russia.

This dispute can only be resolved by the political practice of each country that has embarked on the path of democratic development. If we talk about the experience of Western democracies, then there are examples of the successful functioning of both forms.

All the vicissitudes of the struggle for power in Bangladesh that took place after the adoption of the Constitution and expressed in the form of a struggle between democratic institutions (the President and Parliament, parties against each other, etc.), left the real life of the bulk of the population out of sight of its participants, had is essentially an “apical” character. The masses of the population were involved in active participation only during elections and in moments of serious political crises. On the whole, however, the democratic reforms have little affected the countryside - an important component of the country's social and economic life.

Bibliography

For the preparation of this work were used materials from the site humanities.edu/

Features of the political development of the countries of the Near and Middle East. The political life of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan is united not only by a common geographical position, but also by common civilizational foundations. All of them are Muslim countries that have been strongly influenced by Western modernization, which has left its mark on their common destiny and development prospects of these countries in the new 21st century. The main trends in socio-political development for these countries were determined mainly by the struggle between two main directions in the socio-political life of the countries of the Near and Middle East. On the one hand, there is an Islamic political movement that enjoys enormous influence in these countries, and on the other, a secular, democratic trend, which also made its way under the conditions of traditionalist ideas about the politics and power of the bulk of the population of Muslim states. And this, perhaps, is one of the important features of the political life of these countries at the present stage.
The Islamic factor clearly identified itself during the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States and large-scale military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, events in the East attracted the attention of the entire world community. The concept of political Islam is firmly established in the scientific and political literature. Since the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the position of political Islam has not weakened. The activation of Islamists and their ideas of creating an Islamic state in recent decades had several main reasons for this. First of all, the penetration and establishment of the Western way of life in the eastern states, as well as the integration processes in the world economic and socio-political life, which led to significant political and religious radicalization throughout the Islamic world. International terrorism began to appear under Islamic slogans, which in the last decade has assumed an all-encompassing character. Terrorists from the countries of the Near and Middle East began to operate in all corners of the world. Secondly, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and then the subsequent collapse of the USSR, were perceived by extremists as a victory of the Islamic movement over one of the superpowers. The intensified terrorist attacks on Russia in the early 21st century were prompted by extremists to exploit the weakness of the Russian state, which became the successor to the Soviet Union. After the disappearance of the USSR, political Islamists took on the role of fighters for social justice and equality. The red banner of the communist movement has already left the political arena irrevocably, but Islamic extremists have tried to replace it with the green banner of the Prophet. Thirdly, manifesting itself in various forms, using its influence in the Muslim environment of the population, the political Ivlam tried to conquer the power political structures in most Muslim states. The processes of secularization in these countries, in fact, began to acquire the character of an acute political struggle. Even in Turkey, where Westernization and laicism have taken root since the 1920s, one should nevertheless admit that the basis of the entire political struggle in this state on the modern stage was determined by the struggle of political Islam and secularism. TURVDi back in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries.
° KNIaCh staunch anti-religious opposition. She had a significant impact during the Young Turkish Revolution of the year and managed to implement the policy of secularism during the reign of Kemal Ataturk. Kemal's reforms limited the influence of Islam in all spheres of life and oriented society towards the Western model of capitalist development and Western cultural values. In the second half of the 20th century, the struggle between secularism and the Islamic trend intensified, which even led to repeated interference in the political life of the military, who tried to prevent a civil war. At the beginning of the 21st century, the struggle between these two political trends formed the basis of all political battles in the country. The formation of Islamic political parties was facilitated by the development of democratic forms of government in Turkey. The conflict between the Islamists, who had been in opposition for a rather long period, and the supporters of the secular regime, began to determine the socio-political development of the Turkish state at the present stage.
The influence of Islamist politicians began to noticeably increase from the mid-50s, after the emergence of a multi-party system and significant liberalization of the entire internal life of Turkish citizens. It was then that Islamic parties and organizations appeared. The emergence of political Islamic parties was a reflection of the conflict between the relationship between the Islamic-Lama-Turkic community and the Western model of modernization. The Islamist political movement has quite successfully won adherents, using fairly clear and definite Islamic dogmas. In the past ten years, Islamic parties have formed governments twice. The short-term stay of the Islamists in power in the 90s, led by N. Erbakan, only intensified the actions of Islamic organizations. The politicians managed to return their political positions from Islam in 2002, although their positions looked much more moderate than before.
Turkish society at the turn of the new century was split. Supporters of secularism are not going to give in to political Islamists and continue to protest against the creeping Islamization of the country. Secular parties, a significant part of the intelligentsia, as well as other segments of the population who supported constitutional secularism, and the army, traditionally following the ideals of Kemal Ataturk, tried to block the way of the Islamists. The entry into the new 21st century has shown a certain balance between the secular trend and the Islamist opposition. The political struggle did not contribute to the processes of modernization and the solution of socio-economic problems, but led to socio-political tension and internal conflicts. In those countries where Islamists were in power, society was imposed on their understanding of the political structure and social order. There it was possible to introduce in full the norms of Sharia, which prohibited everything that was, in the opinion of the spiritual rulers, incompatible with the dogma of the Koran. Such scenarios were implemented in one form or another in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The most important feature of the political life of the countries in which the Islamic leaders won the victory was the implementation of the unity of power and religion. This principle was introduced by the Prophet Muhammad, who embodied the religious and political foundations of the unity of the Ummah (Muslim community). The Islamic revolution in Iran, like the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan, tried to implement the Prophet's ideas about the harmonious combination of religious and state principles in the management of Islamic society.
Just as in the days of the Caliphate, the head of the state was the main fakikh, that is, the Shiite spiritual leader, so in modern Iran and Taliban Afghanistan he possessed the highest spiritual and secular power. The supreme spiritual leader was assigned the role of the chief administrator of the affairs of the faithful and the imamate, and at the same time he was the supreme person of the state. Thus, the supreme theocratic power was at the same time the supreme state power. The Islamic clergy also had other theocratic structures, which include the Observatory Council for the Protection of the Constitution in Iran or the Loya Jirga in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the Taliban, having come to power and founded the Islamic Emirate, immediately announced that the Holy Quran would become the main basis of the state system. Although the basic law of Afghanistan has not been promulgated. The Constitution was replaced by the Koran, Sharia law.

The Islamic political and economic organization has proven to be less effective than the secular structures of most Muslim countries. This was the main reason for the growth of reformist sentiments in Iran, the growth of opposition, which considered religious activity incompatible with economic and political affairs. The tendency of secularism and democratism timidly but gradually made its way. In Iran, the struggle to limit the religious component in the political structure of power has never subsided. In some periods, the results of the struggle were manifested in different ways. There was a gradual evolution of the Islamic regime towards an increase in the role of secular bodies and its democratization. This process became especially noticeable) after the death of the great imam. The current spiritual leader of Iran, Sayed Ali Hame-nei, who defends the inviolability of Islamic statehood, is still forced to make some changes in the state structures established once by Ayatollah Khomei-ni. Amendments were made to the constitution that abolished the post of prime minister, strengthened the role of the president, and limited the religious prerogatives of the Supervisory Board. An important law that strengthened the presidential power and its secular functions was the receipt by the president of the right to control the observance of the constitution, which previously belonged to Islamic politicians.
After the death of the Ayatollah in the 90s, privatization and liberalization in the economy began in Iran, and this required a decrease in the role of the state in the Iranian economic structure. Under the new rulers, a policy of attracting foreign capital and the creation of free economic zones began to be pursued. President Khatami made efforts to liberalize public and political life, the activities of the media, political organizations and parties. Khatami's activities, as many researchers believed, were aimed at creating conditions for the development of civil society, at expanding ties with the world community. That is why in Iran, as well as in Turkey and Afghanistan, there was a split in the society into reformers and conservatives. The struggle between two trends in social development began to determine the political development of countries. However, according to the researchers, Iran is characterized by a movement towards democracy, but a special, Islamic democracy.
Iran does not question the Islamic principles of development, but at the same time, one cannot fail to notice the development in the country of democratic norms that form the basis of Western political culture. We are talking about the developing electoral system in the countries and the functioning of a multi-party system. In fact, in Iran, as in other countries of the Near and Middle East, a tradition is being created to elect all levels of government at all levels, including elections to local and central government bodies. The enactment of the law on parties made it possible to create conditions for a multi-party system. At the beginning of the 21st century, the number of political parties in Mpäi exceeded one hundred. The facts of student unrest and not in 2003 showed the growth of reformist forces. n The Iranians' possession to follow the path of reforms began to determine the country's development trend in the 21st century. In 2004 ™, 25 years of the Islamic revolution in Iran is reckoned. This period has already clearly shown the inconsistency of many Islamic canons, incompatible with the needs of the technological age. That is why the beginning of the new century will be for Iran a continuation of the reformation and the strengthening of pragmatism in the field of economy and social life.
In Afghanistan, after the antiterrorist operation was carried out by the coalition forces of the United States and a number of European countries with the participation of the Northern Alliance, the theocratic regime in the country was liquidated. The result of this large-scale action was the destruction of the administrative system created by the Taliban and the flight of their leaders. The establishment of secular power here took place as a result of the defeat of the Islamic regime. However, it would be premature to talk about the complete destruction of the Taliban movement, as well as the entire Islamic political movement. The Taliban managed to dissolve among the Pashtun population in the south and east of Afghanistan, many fled abroad, to Pakistan. Conditions for Islamic extremists remained. The Taliban managed to establish contacts with the Islamist-minded G. Hekmatyar, the former vice-president of Afghanistan.
After the defeat of the Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan in 2001, a completely new system of state structure was created with full economic, financial and military support from the United States and the West. "The formation of the new state took place under the auspices of the UN and strict control over the implementation of the decisions of its representatives. State building began from scratch. The creation of the Interim Administration in Afghanistan took into account the traditions of the Afghan people and their religious and social structure. The first transitional government was determined by the All-Afghan Assembly of Elders and Tribal Representatives - Loya Jirga. In addition, this traditional organization elected members of the transitional parliament and members of the constitutional commission. Instead of a theocratic state, a secular structure was created taking into account traditional forms of central and local government. Islamists did not give up their attempts to destabilize the situation in Afghanistan.The situation remained not sufficiently stable until 2005. In some cases, the power of the governors is largely avisela from the field commanders stationed on their territory. The central government had to take measures to eliminate the dependence of local authorities on the armed formations and Islamists. At the beginning of the century, numerous terrorist acts, incessant explosions in large cities, attempts on the life of the head of the administration of H. Karzai, conspiracies against the provisional government characterized the situation in the first years of the functioning of the provisional government. One of the major conspiracies of the Islamist G. Hekmatyar and his supporters against the interim government has been disclosed.
So, in the countries of the Near and Middle East, modern forms of the political process are gradually making their way - a multi-party system, parliamentarism, legal political activity, elections, etc. However, in the overwhelming majority, these forms do not yet determine the social and political life of these countries. Political civic organizations in Muslim countries, under the outwardly modern shell, often preserve their traditional essence, uniting people according to ethnic, religious or compatriot principles. Many orientalists believe that the formation of a civil society seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. And the democratic processes themselves are acquiring a very specific character.

LITERATURE
Vasiliev L. S. History of the East. In 2 vols. M., 2002 Eastern world: experiences of social transformation. / Sat. articles. M., "Ant", 2001
Islamism and Extremism in the Middle East. / Sat. articles. Resp. editor Arunova M. R. M., 2001 Iran: Dialogue of Civilizations. / Sat. articles. M., "Ant", 2003 Marsadin M. Taliban. War and Religion in Afghanistan. M., 2002 The latest history of the countries of Asia and Africa. XX century. At 2 o'clock M., VLADOS, 2001
Kunakov V.V. Turkey and the EU: Problems of Economic Integration. Institute for the Study of Israel and the Middle East. M., 1999

Of particular importance for the characteristics of the political process are changes in the type of development, which are associated with the definition of the qualitative direction of the evolution of political systems and therefore presuppose one or another interpretation of progress, the definition of target strategies of political regimes, and the qualitative identification of the organization of power.

As a rule, within the framework of stable political processes, it is possible to apply linear development models. In other words, the qualitative identification of the political system is based here on well-known models - socialism, liberalism, conservatism, etc., which have a strictly developed system of development criteria. For example, from the point of view of Marxists, the development of the system of power allows us to speak of political changes that testify to the dominance of collective forms of ownership, the hegemony of the working class and the leading role of the communist party in the political system. The predominance of the ideology of human rights, the protection of the individual in relations with the state, the control of civil society over the state, pluralism, spiritual freedom testify to the development of the system, from the point of view of liberals. When defining development, conservatives emphasize the predominance of moral incentives for political behavior, ensuring continuity with previous forms of government, maintaining the basic norms and principles of organizing power, etc. In a word, the use of such criteria makes it possible for some to speak about the preference, for example, of democracy over totalitarianism, while others - socialism over capitalism.

Thanks to the use of such conceptual models, the acquisition of a certain degree of development by a political system can be represented as a relative linear process, which presupposes the growth of certain qualities in it due to changes that occur as the evolution (or revolutionary, transformations) of properties of a strictly defined type.

However, in transitional societies in conditions of incomplete political processes, the use of these criteria is not only difficult, but often opposes the very idea of ​​development. For example, the institutionalization of democratic procedures for the administration of power, the expansion of pluralism can lead in these conditions to the establishment of despotic forms of government, loss of control over society and other consequences that are clearly negative for the organization of power.

Due to the inapplicability in this case of ideologically defined criteria for assessing development in science, there are many approaches that offer their own criteria for such an assessment. For example, supporters of the "catastrophe theory", seeing the reasons for the political crisis and instability of transitional systems in the presence of certain "archetypes" (uncritically assimilated by people of values, attitudes to reality), provoking mass protests and leading to an imbalance in the position of political forces, associate development with the search for "archetypes -Antagonists "capable of stimulating the opposite directional behavioral reactions of the population and authorities.

Adherents of the idea of ​​cyclical (sociocultural, civilizational) dynamics (Humphrey, Toffler, Prigogine), considering transition processes as a necessary component of the cyclical alternation of political ups and downs, i.e. a certain phase of the emergence and decline of global political (social) shifts in the history of society, put forward other criteria for development. In accordance with their views, distinguishing between long and short waves of such changes, as well as the temporal parameters of their continuation, it is necessary to develop appropriate technologies for adapting to these intermediate stages, to look for "turning points" that can strengthen event management and shorten the time for the onset of the ascending phase of development.

F. Tennis, M. Weber and T. Parsons proposed their own version of the interpretation of development in transitional conditions, who laid the foundations of the so-called sociology of development. Proponents of this trend considered all modifications of political systems as part of a long-term transition from traditional to modern society. At the same time, the former was understood primarily as agrarian, based on simple reproduction and characterized by a closed social structure, a low individual status of a citizen, and strict patronage of state government. Modern society was interpreted by them as industrial (post-industrial), based on the openness of the social structure and the rational organization of power.

From this point of view, political development is achieved to the extent that political structures, norms and institutions are capable of a prompt, flexible response to new social, economic and other problems, to the perception of public opinion. In other words, the political system, forming mechanisms with stable feedback, rational organization of management links capable of taking into account the opinions of the population and implementing decisions, turns into a flexible mechanism for targeted regulation of conflicts and the choice of optimal options for the use of power. This process also expresses the positive dynamics of this system of power, signifies its transition to a qualitatively new level of its existence. In this case, it does not matter what specific national-state form political changes will take (unitary, federal or other), which party will receive the ruling status, which ideology will determine policy in the future. In this sense, political development is interpreted as an increase in the ability of the political system to flexibly adapt to changing social conditions (the requirements of groups, a new balance of forces and resources of power), while maintaining and increasing opportunities for elites and ordinary citizens to perform their specific functions in managing society and the state.

Understood in this way, development is inextricably linked with the presence of institutional opportunities for the articulation of group interests, the presence of a regulatory (primarily legislative) framework that can ensure equality of political participation of traditional and new social groups, as well as enhance the influence of values ​​that imply the integration of society and the identification of citizens. This leads to high requirements for the competence of political (both ruling and opposition) elites, for their ability to use consensus, legal technologies of power, to exclude violence and political radicalism.

One of the main conditions for successful evolutionary political development is the timely allocation of predominantly short-term tasks in carrying out reforms and transformations aimed at real, rather than declarative, advancement of society forward. In contrast, projects oriented towards a long historical perspective cannot take into account the dynamism of current changes and, when they are consistently implemented, turn into a factor that increases resistance to reforms and leads to a landslide, uncontrollable development of events. As a result, the state, according to E. Burke, not only loses the means of carrying out reforms, but also ceases to exist.

Such approaches, combined with some of the ideas of J. Locke, A. Smith, formed the basis of the theory of modernization, which is a combination of various schemes and models of analysis that allow describing and revealing the dynamics of overcoming the backwardness of traditional states.

The development of statehood and the formation of modern political structures in the countries of the East are fundamentally different from the Western models we know. In turn, these differences were largely due to the diverse nature of the development of capitalist relations in the metropolises (West) and dependent countries (East).

First, in the East, of course, the historical evolution of the traditional mode of production was interrupted due to the violent impact of an external factor: direct - foreign conquest (classic colonial version) or indirect - the threat of conquest, limitation of sovereignty and economic expansion (semi-colonial sub-option). As a result, the traditional mode of production and way of life was gradually pushed aside to the periphery of society, while part of it was forcibly involved in synthesis (while being qualitatively modified) with a foreign capitalist way of life. At the same time, the synthesis arises not as a result of intrastate evolution, but as an interstate clash and the forced orientation of the mode of production in the bourgeois direction by capitalist elements of foreign origin.

It cannot, of course, be said that in the West the factor of foreign violence did not play any role in the transformation and synthesis of social structures. On the contrary, it is often possible to note the decisive role of military conquest in the genesis of feudalism, or the role of the Napoleonic wars and occupation for accelerating the capitalist development of some territories of Europe. The peculiarity of the colonial conquests was that they led to the emergence of such world-historical phenomena as the colonial system, colonial synthesis and associated with the last division of labor on a global scale. As a result, communication and interaction of Eastern societies in their natural regional and cultural environment was blocked, in which there were centers and periphery, centers of development and stagnation within the framework of the pre-bourgeois relations that existed there.

Second, the colonial synthesis was distinguished by the fact that it began "from above", that is, from the superstructure political "floor" of society. The colonial administration or local power entangled in networks of unequal agreements not only acted as the first manifestations of synthesis, but was also the main instrument and stimulator in the implementation of synthesis processes in other components of social life (in economic and social life, in the field of culture and ideology).

Thirdly, colonial synthesis is distinguished by its special variegation and versatility. If in the countries of Western Europe the transition from a feudal society, fragmentation and civil strife and absolutist centralization was accompanied by the formation of more or less homogeneous states in terms of nationality and ethnic composition and the level of socio-economic development, in most countries of the East during the period of their involvement in the colonial system, the picture was different ... On the one hand, there were significant differences between the countries of the East in the level of their development, on the other, the boundaries of specific colonial possessions also covered territories with an unequal level of development (from the primitive communal system to late feudalism) and significant ethnic differences. To this should be added the originality that distinguished the policies of the colonial administrations, as well as the forms of foreign entrepreneurship in different metropolises. All this led to the diversity of Eastern societies and ways of forming statehood in the postcolonial period.

Fourthly, the genesis of colonial synthesis, as well as all subsequent any significant transformations of it (up to independence) were determined primarily by the metropolis. If the transition of the metropolises to the phase of industrial capitalism caused the need for the final formulation of the colonial synthesis with its specific form of division of labor between the colony and the metropolis, then the transition to the stage of monopoly capitalism and the export of capital gave rise to direct industrial investments in the colonies, that is, modern forms of entrepreneurship. (synthesis of foreign entrepreneurship and local labor force), national entrepreneurship, petty-bourgeois forms of commercial and industrial activity, national intelligentsia, modern forms of social and political movements and other phenomena that somehow affect political and state formation. All these features of the formation and development of synthesis resulted in the formation of a combined or multi-structured society, consisting of many components. Of course, in different countries of the East, the ratio of these components of a combined society on the eve of independence was very different, which was also important for the peculiarities of the state and political formation of this or that Eastern society.

1.5.7. National-state integration in the countries of the East

The achievement of political independence by the countries of the East has become an important historical milestone in their development. However, contrary to the hopes of some national leaders and the aspirations of the masses, political independence itself did not become, and could not become a panacea for age-old backwardness and other troubles associated with the colonial past.

Political national liberation revolutions and the establishment of national statehood were decisive prerequisites, without which it was impossible even to begin solving the problem of overcoming the combined character of societies in the modern East. It should be borne in mind that neither the political revolution nor the establishment of national statehood could by themselves eliminate the combined character of society, that the solution of this problem constitutes the content of an entire historical epoch.

What is a blended society? This is a society characterized by a very weak internal integration of those components of its structure, which are heterogeneous formally or typologically. The relationship between these components is provided by:

1. forces external to them (relatively autonomous political superstructure or political violence);
2. the commonality of the territorial and geographical factor - the joint location within one state;
3. non-essential or secondary social ties, that is, those whose rupture does not violate their inner essence (for example, if the traditional and foreign sectors are very weakly connected with each other and coexist as autonomous structures, then the termination of their private and casual ties does not lead to the closure of the foreign enterprise, nor the destruction of the internal life of the traditional sector).

At the moment of gaining independence, the fastening factor of colonial political violence is replaced by the factor of moral and political cohesion around the national leadership, focusing in itself the forces of a multi-structured society that are heterogeneous in their essence, but united in external anti-colonial aspirations. This cohesion can act by inertia for some time after independence is achieved, but by no means unlimited. Centrifugal tendencies, which have their origins in the heterogeneity and diversity of the components of a combined society, revive along the path of independent development. This prompts national governments to think about the development of a strategy of national-state integration, the purpose of which would be to transform a combined society into a nationally integral society, that is, into a social organism where all components are homogeneous in socio-economic and socio-political terms, and all the main connections between them are significant.

The post-war history of a number of Eastern countries has shown that there were national leaders and governments who tried to solve this problem (and at the same time the problem of their own legitimacy) only with the help of a system of legislative and ideological propaganda measures. The national leadership of practically all the countries of the East, developing along the path of capitalism, sought to create (on their own initiative or at the suggestion of the former metropolis) a modern bourgeois state. The nationally integrated society was essentially declared, and this myth was supported by noisy propaganda campaigns. However, a real diverse society required concrete evidence of the ability of their governments to express multifaceted interests. But just as before in almost all European countries after the first bourgeois revolutions, the modern countries of the East from the first day of independence have faced the phenomenon of inconsistency of a real multi-structured society with the framework of the officially proclaimed national-state community. This is one of the main problems of the absolute majority of governments in the countries of the East to this day.

However, the formation of the modern bourgeois states of the West was the logical result of the natural-historical process of the emergence and development of elements of the future bourgeois civil society still in the depths of dying feudalism and its further development under the conditions of the first phase of capitalism. As a result, nationally integrated civil societies emerged, that is, at a certain stage, the framework of real and civil societies generally coincided, when the bulk of real society perceived itself primarily as citizens of a given state, while belonging to narrower and local societies and groups fades into the background, and in some cases disappears altogether. As a result, a correspondence arises between civil society and its natural result - the bourgeois state, a relative functional harmony, when existing contradictions are resolved in everyday life on the basis of consensus.

The situation was different in the East, where traditionally the state was everything, and civil society was in an amorphous state. The modern bourgeois states in the countries of the East (regardless of their specific forms) appeared, although not from heaven, but nevertheless "from above" - ​​either as a result of political national liberation revolutions, or thanks to the deal of the former metropolises with the upper crust of the ruling classes. Immediately after achieving independence, these states found themselves on a completely inadequate basis of a combined real society, in which, if they contained individual, mainly potential elements of a modern bourgeois civil society, in most cases they were not enough to ensure the stability, strength and effective operation of a truly modern state. ... Legislatively affirming bourgeois statehood in the liberated countries of the East could not be anything other than a framework borrowed from the outside - a form without a corresponding essential content.

The fact is that in the social structure of modern countries of the East, there are essentially two different types of traditional. This is a colonial synthesis and archaic, that is, pre-colonial, primordially traditional. It would seem that the structure of colonial synthesis is not entirely legitimate to refer to the traditional one, as long as we are considering the countries of the East, evolving along the capitalist path. After all, colonial synthesis is the result of the penetration of foreign capital, that is, bourgeois relations, and the corresponding transformation of some part of the local elements. Therefore, it would be more logical to consider it as modern. This, obviously, would be the case if the process of influence of the metropolis on the colonies and semi-colonies was reduced only to ordinary Westernization, that is, to bourgeois modernization according to the Western model. But Westernization in this case was unusual and was carried out in a colonial form. In other words, this colonial model of Westernization was stimulated and in general was entirely associated with foreign exploitation. That is why, from the moment the national order appeared, the colonial synthesis, despite its internal bourgeois orientation, could no longer be regarded as modern, and as the latter it was now opposed by the national capitalist order. And it was precisely to clear the paths for the development of this modern society that, in particular, anti-colonial liberation political revolutions were required.

The second archaic type includes all those social structures that were traditional even before the formation of colonial synthesis. Basically, they survived until independence, since the metropolises could not (and often did not want) to grind all the traditional ways of colonies and semi-colonies.

Therefore, the official state has, as they say, to fight on two fronts:

1. against the traditional, from which it grew directly, that is, colonial synthesis;
2. against the archaic traditional, which has survived since pre-colonial times and which only under the pressure of a changing situation is involved in the processes of modernization.

Thus, the ultimate goal is the same: bourgeois modernization and national-state integration, but the processes of synthesis, with the help of which this goal is achieved, proceed in two channels. All this determines a particularly significant role of the state in the modern countries of the East. It is called upon to play an active formative or creative role practically on all levels of society in the economic basis (including as a direct agent of industrial relations, performing the functions of organizing and managing production), in the national-ethnic situation, in the social structure, in the entire system of the political superstructure. (including in terms of completing and rebuilding its own civilian and military-police apparatus).

All this active and versatile activity is necessary to overcome the forces of diversity and to include the masses of the population who lived within the framework of archaic traditional sectors and traditional colonial synthesis into the panorama of modern civil society. Moreover, the national governments and leaders have tried and are trying to compensate for the absence of a universal cementing and cementing civil life with political life introduced from above.

In general, the process of the formation of civil society in modern countries of the East and its relationship with the official state after independence is significantly different than in Western Europe. There, the formation of a civil society was a prerequisite for the formation of a modern bourgeois state. The process of its formation began in the phase of absolutism, therefore, immediately after the political bourgeois revolutions, the modern state and the subsequent evolution of its historical forms from lower to higher (from traditional authoritarianism to modern bourgeois democracy) were basically determined by the level of development of this civil society, the processes of consolidation and etc.

Thus, in Western Europe, the development process proceeded on the whole "from below" - from the economic base and social structure to the political superstructure. In the overwhelming majority of Eastern countries, the national capitalist system by the time independence was achieved was unusually weak to be able to independently fulfill its system-forming function. Therefore, immediately after independence was achieved, the proactive, stimulating and guiding role in the formation of civil society belonged to the superstructural elements, primarily the elite layers of the state apparatus (the core of the modern state). In other words, the process of the formation of civil society here began mainly "from above". And only as the civil society is strengthened and formed, it can begin to exert ever-increasing pressure on the official state, forcing it to further evolution (a process that is often accompanied by crisis and revolutionary situations).

It follows from what has been said that in the countries of the East, after achieving independence, the modern state (parliamentary republic) borrowed from the West did not have an adequate economic and social base, national-ethnic structure, and even sufficient elements to construct its own (i.e., state) apparatus. Where such a state was created (formally, these are the majority of the colonial countries of the East, with the exception of authoritarian, socialist and monarchical ones), very soon the discrepancy between the official form of this state and the society over which it towered was revealed.

The formation of new forms of the state in such conditions did not mean the establishment of its general and real control over the traditional sectors of society. Huge strata of the traditional continue to live their relatively closed life and are guided in it by other value orientations than those prescribed by the official state. The loyalty of social groups of this kind has long been guided either by colonial synthesis or by archaic ways of life. This explains the numerous opposition and even separatist movements in many developing countries that emerge there immediately after independence. The essence of these movements is either colonial synthesis or archaic traditional ways.

Neo-colonialism is trying to use these movements in its own selfish interests. In practice, these two opposition streams can act separately, jointly or even against each other. In the latter case, some traditionalist movements may carry an anti-colonialist charge and temporarily block with modern national social forces. The analysis of these specific manifestations is an important aspect of modern political science.

Colonial legacy in state structures after independence.

After the young states achieved independence, the existing colonial division of labor could not be destroyed in one fell swoop, by the subjective will of anyone. But it could have been eliminated during a rather long transitional period (along the lines of a capitalist or socialist orientation) through the transformative activities of the government and society as a whole. This activity in countries following the capitalist path of development begins primarily with the process of further modification of colonial synthesis.

The main change that independence brings to the synthesis modification processes is the elimination of the colonial administration as an integral part of the political superstructure of the metropolis, that is, the elimination of the political mechanism for the violent orientation of political development in an anti-national direction. Instead, a new mechanism appears - national statehood. The former bi-national (metropolis - colony) statehood is torn apart, and the colonial synthesis now resides not within a single imperial-type statehood, but between two types of politically independent states. Already by this political act, the beginning of the modification of the traditional colonial synthesis into the neo-colonial one is laid.

At the first stages of independent bourgeois development, important changes take place associated with the establishment of national statehood. They consist in the regrouping of the structural components of the combined society. The national order (state or private) is gaining a dominant position. Of course, during this period, for most developing countries it is not yet possible to completely abandon the attraction of foreign capital. However, with the strengthening of the national capitalist structure and the general change in the balance of forces, a process of forced restructuring of foreign capital takes place. He now more and more often agrees to more favorable forms and conditions of functioning for young national states: the elimination of the colonial system, the creation of mixed companies with a predominant participation of national capital, the introduction of more progressive contracting forms, etc. countries.

In many respects, the situation is similar in the area of ​​political (as well as cultural) nationalization. However, it is possible to create, for example, a national state apparatus or an army, but if key posts or the real right to make the most important decisions still belong to foreign advisers and persons of a pro-imperialist orientation, then it is unlikely that in this case it is necessary to talk about the completion of the nationalization of the state apparatus. Or another example. If all the work of a national news agency is based on Western sources of information and the appropriate methods of processing and presenting it, then it is impossible, obviously, to talk about the complete nationalization of the information service. With all the originality of the question, the above in many aspects also applies to the Christian religion introduced by the colonialists. The process of its nationalization includes not only the nationalization of confessional cadres, language, liturgy, but above all a substantive reorientation of all church activities from serving the interests of the former colonial synthesis to protecting national-state interests.

Thus, the essential elements of colonial synthesis persist and manifest themselves even across new national borders. However, independence gives rise to a long process of modification and transformation of synthesis, and ultimately - elimination through element-by-element change in its structure. This process can be called the withering away of colonialism or, which is the same thing, the elimination of neo-colonialism.

Social Democracy is the initiator of democratic reforms. The socio-political formation of the developed zone of the modern world in the post-war decades went under the sign of the further expansion of the role of the state in the most important spheres of society. This was largely facilitated by the fact that the main socio-political forces in one form or another adopted the principles of Keynesianism and the welfare state.

The main initiator of social reforms in Western Europe was social democracy. Finding themselves in a number of countries at the helm of government or turning into a serious parliamentary force, the social democratic parties and the trade unions supporting them initiated many reforms (nationalization of a number of economic sectors, an unprecedented expansion of state social programs, a reduction in working hours, etc.) the foundation that has ensured rapid economic development. Their merit lies in the creation and strengthening of the welfare state, without which the socio-political system of the modern industrially developed world is inconceivable.

After the Second World War, in the light of the experience of fascism in Germany and Bolshevism in the USSR, European social democracy in real politics broke with Marxism and recognized the enduring value of the rule of law. In 1951, the Socialist International adopted its program of principles - the Frankfurt Declaration. It formulated the basic values ​​of democratic socialism. The last dot on the i in this issue was first put in the Vienna Program of the Socialist Party of Austria (1958) and the Godesberg Program of the SPD (1959), which decisively rejected the fundamental postulates about the dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle, the destruction of private property, the socialization of the means of production, etc. ... Subsequently, the rest of the national detachments of social democracy followed the same path (some earlier, others later, some in the 80s).

The Socialist International, which united 42 socialist and social democratic parties of European and non-European countries, has become a positive factor in world development. European Social Democracy has played an important role in achieving a detente between East and West, in the deployment of the Helsinki process, and other important processes that have contributed to the improvement of the international climate in recent decades. An invaluable role in all this was played by such outstanding figures of social democracy of the 20th century as W. Brandt, W. Palme, B. Kraisky, F. Mitterrand and others.

Liberalism and Conservatism. For a number of reasons, the liberal parties in the countries of Western Europe were relegated to the background. However, in the United States, the role of the main bearer of social reformism was retained by the Democratic Party, which since the period of F.D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" has become associated with liberalism and social reformism.

Most of the conservative socio-political forces also realized the need for social reforms. It is characteristic that throughout the post-war period the conservative parties, having come to power, with certain changes continued the course of preserving, and in some cases expanding the programs of state intervention and social assistance.

In other words, the majority of political currents that opposed revolutionary upheavals reached unity regarding some of the fundamental principles of the state and political structure. It is significant that from the late 1940s to the 1960s, a kind of agreement (consensus) was formed in Western countries between moderate conservatives, liberals and social democrats regarding the principles of state intervention. In general, during this period, social reformism and Keynesian principles of state intervention reached their apogee.

The Welfare State: Preconditions and Creation of Basic Institutions. The so-called mixed economy has finally taken shape. Its essence lies in the organic combination of different forms of ownership and economic activity - private, collective and state. As a result of the nationalization of entire sectors of the economy (for example, coal and railroad transport) or individual large enterprises, carried out mainly during the period of the Social-Reform and Social-Democratic governments in power, a fairly large public sector has emerged. So, in the leading countries of Western Europe, it covered 20-25% of the industry. The mixed economy combines the advantages of state planning and control with private enterprise initiative.

The successes in the economic sphere have created the preconditions for the final formation of the basic institutions and mechanisms of the welfare state. The central place in it was occupied by programs of social assistance to the poor, job creation, support for education systems, health care, and pensions. State intervention in the relationship between labor and capital was of particular importance. State bodies assumed the role of an arbiter in resolving disputes arising between entrepreneurs and trade unions, and in every possible way contributed to the conclusion of collective agreements between them. The state provided active assistance to the development of health care systems, education, science, etc. Thus, it was envisaged to ensure equal starting opportunities for all citizens by providing social guarantees to those who needed it. The policy of the state was aimed at raising the standard of living of the broad strata of the population to the standard of living of the well-to-do strata. Ideally, the goal was to reduce social inequality by providing social services in the most important spheres of life. These services include: a system of family benefits for children, free school education, retirement benefits, unemployment and disability benefits, etc.

In a far-reaching and complete form, these principles are implemented in the so-called Scandinavian, or Swedish, model of socialism, implemented in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The main characteristic features of this model are: the creation of a highly efficient economy in a relatively short period; providing employment for almost the entire working-age population; the elimination of poverty; creation of the most developed social security system in the world; achieving a high level of literacy and culture. This model is sometimes called "functional socialism" on the grounds that a democratic state carries out the functions of redistributing national income in order to ensure greater social justice.

Reasons for "softening" social confrontation. Remaining problems. It is obvious that many of the principles, which in theory were proclaimed by the communists and the leaders of the USSR and other socialist countries, were more effectively implemented in practice in the countries of Western Europe and North America. This policy has played an important role in solving a number of key economic, social and political issues. Using the state to solve problems of employment, housing construction, regulation of prices for agricultural products, the introduction of unemployment benefits, old-age and disability pensions, etc., the ruling circles of the industrialized countries of the West managed to significantly alleviate the severity of social conflicts.

When assessing this fact, it should be noted that the division between classes (haves and have-nots) in modern society cannot be understood as some kind of immutable given that does not allow any changes. The market economy and private entrepreneurship by no means exclude the possibility of moving the most enterprising people from the lower strata of society to the ranks of the haves. In turn, some representatives of the propertied classes are losing their former positions and replenishing the army of hired workers. Under the influence of circumstances, the position of certain factions of the ruling classes in economics and politics also changes, and the balance of forces between them changes. As a result of these and other factors, modern industrial society contributed to the weakening or "softening" of the objective basis of mutual confrontation and struggle of social groups and classes. In this respect, significant changes took place in the 70s and 90s.

However, this does not mean at all that capitalism was able to solve all the problems facing and emerging before society. During the Second World War, thanks to the need to fight totalitarianism for life and death, the West managed to awaken such gigantic forces that allowed it not only to overcome (temporarily) the crisis, but also to make a rapid leap in social and technological development after the war. ... However, neither the military defeat of Nazism, nor the collapse of communism, by themselves, can yet serve as proof of the perfection of the Western system and the Western way of life. Moreover, as noted by the vice-president of the European Society of Culture A. Levy, "history provided us with the opportunity to see how the crises and contradictions of modern capitalism and modern democracy have repeatedly given the communist system a chance for success in great competition."

But with all the external well-being of the situation in terms of the most important parameters of the material standard of living, the West still has to admit that the crisis in their way of life has not been removed from the agenda. Despite large-scale social programs, in many countries the cardinal problem of social inequality persisted, and in some cases worsened. Social peace and stability come at great cost. Some countries are becoming the arena of acute social conflicts, manifested in strikes, strikes, demonstrations.

This, in particular, is evidenced by the important role that the workers' and communist movement played in the political life of industrialized countries during the first post-war decades, up to the 70s. In Italy, France and other countries, the communist parties and the trade unions headed by them exerted a great influence on the processes and trends of social and domestic political development. Their activities played an important role in the adoption of social legislation by the ruling circles of these countries in the 1950s and 1960s, nationalization, and the expansion of the regulatory and control functions of the state. But, as subsequent experience has shown, communist attitudes towards a revolutionary change in the socio-political system existing in the West did not find a proper response among the broad strata of the population of the countries and peoples of this region. Moreover, in the conditions of the crisis of leftist ideologies and the collapse of the communist system in the USSR and the countries of the socialist community in the 80s and 90s, the communist movement as a real political force, in fact, disappeared from the socio-political arena of the developed zone of the world.

Post-war development of the third world countries. The Third World as a whole was characterized by a huge variety and contrast of natural-climatic, socio-economic, ethno-national, political, international and other conditions. Politically, after the liberation from the colonial yoke in the East (with the exception of Japan), three groups of countries emerged: countries developing along the capitalist path, among which the so-called newly industrialized countries (NIS) appeared in the 1970s and 1980s; non-European socialist countries, which, being part of the socialist community, in terms of the level of socio-economic development, the tasks facing them, simultaneously belonged to the third world; countries of the so-called socialist orientation.

The process of formation and approval of the state and political systems of these states was very difficult. During and after the struggle for independence, political parties were formed in many of them. An important role in the political life of developing countries has been played and continues to be played by the army, which is basically an independent political force. In conditions of chronic weakness of the national-bourgeois parties, their loss of authority among the masses (for example, in Burma, Myanmar, Syria, Iraq), the army leadership often intervened in political disputes, often removing legally elected governments from power.

As a result, coups d'état became an integral part of the political life of third world countries. In a number of countries in Asia and Africa, the military has carried out some serious anti-colonial and anti-feudal reforms. However, the stay in power of the military for a long time also had serious negative consequences, hindering the development of political democracy, limiting the participation of the people in making decisions that affect their fate. In some countries, the army has become, in the hands of dictatorial regimes, an instrument for suppressing democratic forces and asserting its rule.

During the 1960s and 1970s, revolutionary democratic parties came to the fore in socialist-oriented countries, whose programs contained provisions on deep social and economic transformations of a socialist nature. These are the parties of the Arab Socialist Renaissance (PASV-BAAS) of Syria and Iraq, the National Liberation Front of Algeria, the Democratic Party of Guinea, the Revolutionary Party of Tanzania, the Congolese Labor Party, the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO) and others. formulated various eastern national variants of socialism - Islamic, African, Indian. For all their failure, the promotion by the national-bourgeois and petty-bourgeois movements and parties of socialism as a guiding slogan testified to the wide popularity of socialist ideas and projects at that time.

On the whole, these countries were guided by the USSR and the European socialist countries, which provided them with great material, political and moral support. They got the opportunity to carry out deep socio-economic transformations, increase the rate of development of productive forces, switch to industrialization, intensify the development of agriculture, and raise the standard of living. At the first stage of their existence, certain successes were achieved in the most important spheres of life of these countries. Millions of previously illiterate peasants, workers, artisans, and small traders were given the opportunity to study, improve their educational and cultural level, and get a specialty.

At the same time, factors that negatively influenced the socio-economic development of these countries were gradually revealed. First of all, these are shortcomings common to all socialist countries, such as excessive centralization and nationalization of the economy, inhibiting the activity and initiative of the worker, the cult of personality, the dominance of outdated administrative command methods of leadership, the lack of real incentives to productive work, etc.

Victory of the neo-conservative forces in the 70s and 80s. In the 80s and 90s, Eastern Europe and the USSR became the epicenter of large-scale events and processes of world-historical significance. We are talking about anti-totalitarian revolutions in the Eastern European socialist countries and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet military-political bloc. A new situation has emerged, characterized by a discrepancy between traditional ideological and political attitudes and orientation to the real problems of our time. There was a growing awareness of the need to revise the role of the state in the economic and social spheres. This is due to the fact that the end of the 70s - the beginning of the 80s became the borderline when the system of state intervention in the form in which it was established in the West during the entire XX century reached its climax and, in certain aspects, exhausted itself , found herself in the deepest crisis.

An indicator of this was the so-called neo-conservative wave of the 70s and 80s, during which left-wing political parties and movements were pushed into the background and right-wing and conservative forces won in many countries. The central place in their programs was occupied by attitudes to reduce the role of the state in the economy, denationalization, privatization, the revival of private initiative, competition, market principles in the economic and social spheres. The slogan of the day was the formula “Less is better”. The protection of human rights has acquired the status of one of the main problems of state and international politics.

Ronald Reagan's rise to power in the USA (1980) and his victory for a second term in 1984, the victory of the Conservative Party headed by Margaret Thatcher in England three times in a row, the results of parliamentary and local elections in Germany, Italy, France showed that that the ideas and slogans put forward by these forces turned out to be in tune with the sentiments of fairly broad strata of the population. It turned out that we are talking about a deep phenomenon, not limited by national boundaries. These ideas and slogans were sooner or later picked up, in fact, by all the other leading socio-political forces, including the social democratic and socialist parties. It is significant that in the 1980s and 1990s the social democratic parties in power pursued, in fact, a neoconservative economic policy of denationalization, denationalization, and decentralization.

The crisis of leftist ideology in the West. His reasons. The crisis of the centrally planned state economy of the USSR and other socialist countries became one of the manifestations of a large-scale and deep crisis of leftism in general, which has engulfed all countries and regions of the modern world. The last two or three decades have been characterized by a steady decline in the influence of left-wing movements and parties, especially communists, in the political life of developed capitalist countries. Among the factors that had a negative impact on this process, apparently, a significant role was played by the failure of the socialist experiment in the USSR and other countries of the socialist camp, which had become obvious by that time. In the 1930s, the successes of the USSR in eliminating unemployment and poverty, introducing social legislation, solving production problems against the background of the economic crisis in the West made a huge impression on working people around the world.

In the 70s, the slogans of planning, socialization, centralization lost their attractiveness in the light of the obvious difficulties that arose in the course of building socialism. A mixed economy has established itself in the West, organically combining various elements of leftism, conservatism and liberalism. As a result, she acquired openness, flexibility and the ability to adapt to different conditions. In the countries of the Eastern bloc, however, the left project was implemented in a "pure" form. The very logic of the establishment and preservation of this "purity" dictated a constant bias towards the centralization and nationalization of the system, its unification and closure. Therefore, it is natural that at the turn of the 70s and 80s, when leftism itself and its offspring - the system of state intervention in the West - reached the limit of their development and found themselves in a crisis, the question of their revision and adaptation to new conditions arose on the agenda.

In the East, the very posing of the question of revising or changing the system could not but shake its fundamental principles, since any change could be carried out only in the direction opposite to nationalization, centralization and planning. And consistent movement in this direction ultimately could not but lead to openness, pluralism of forms of ownership and management, decentralization, denationalization, privatization, etc. And these are principles that are incompatible with the very nature of the state-planned economy. In other words, if in the West the crisis envisaged simply a recovery, cutting off obsolete, obsolete nodes, then in the East we could already talk about something more - a change in the very foundations of the economic system.

An important role in this context was played by the nature of the Soviet political system, which was of a totalitarian nature. This system can exist only under conditions of more or less complete economic, political and ideological autarchy, i.e. de facto isolation of the overwhelming majority of the population from the processes unfolding in the rest of the world. It is no coincidence that the totalitarian system was experiencing the time of its highest ascent precisely in the period when it reached a state of complete closure. This is, in general, the ZO-50s and, with some reservations, the 60s.

Information, or telecommunications, revolution every year increased the permeability of state borders for the flow of information and ideas. Jamming Western broadcasters became more expensive and ineffective. The further rapid development of radio telecommunication facilities and duplicators inexorably cast doubt on the very possibility of keeping the borders locked in the future.

As a result, on the ideological and propaganda fronts, the Soviet system began to give up one position after another. With the undermining of ideology, the state-political system was also undermined. First, the military defeat of Nazi Germany, and then the already obvious failure of the socialist experiment in the USSR and other socialist countries, demonstrated the fact that totalitarianism is a dead-end path of human development. But at the same time, the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet bloc and the socialist community also meant the end of the division of the modern international community into three independent and opposing worlds.

The process of establishing democratic regimes in most countries of the world. The entire XX century. characterized by the widespread dissemination of the institutions and values ​​of liberal democracy. This trend received a particularly strong impetus after the Second World War. At first, democratic regimes were established in West Germany, Italy, Japan, India and a number of other countries. Over the past two decades, they have established themselves both in European countries, which were previously dominated by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and in a number of countries in Asia and Latin America. Since the mid-70s, with the deployment of revolutionary movements in the countries of southern Europe - Greece, Spain and Portugal - a kind of democratic wave began against the dictatorial regimes dominating there, which seemed to sweep the entire planet.

However, a truly gigantic breakthrough of world-historical significance in this direction was made in the late 80s and early 90s as a result of the above processes and events in Eastern Europe and the USSR. The expansion of the democratic political system, democratic institutions, values, attitudes and norms has taken on a planetary scale. In literally one and a half to two years, all Eastern European countries, without exception, have taken the path of democratic reconstruction. Most of the newly independent post-Soviet countries have also opted for a market economy and a democratic form of political structure.

Democracy has made impressive strides in Latin America. On the African continent, after 1989, the authoritarian or one-party regimes that dominated there entered a period of deep crisis, and it seemed that democracy had achieved impressive successes. During 1991 and 1992. in many African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, etc.) elections were held on a multiparty basis. In the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan and Bangladesh, authoritarian regimes have been replaced by democratically elected governments. Similar shifts took place in the Arab countries - Yemen and Jordan, as well as Albania, Mongolia, Nepal and Benin. At the same time, a large group of countries has survived, including those with significant weight and influence in the international arena, where semi-democratic and openly authoritarian forms still dominate.

Summing up the above, we can conclude that with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the very ideological and political axis of the bipolar world order collapsed. The very ideological and political concept “West” has lost its meaning. Japan, along with other newly industrialized countries of the Asia-Pacific region, seemed to return to Asia again and became Asian countries capable of building their relations with all countries and regions, regardless of ideological predilections. The need to divide the world community into three separate worlds according to ideological-dolitical or systemic criteria has also disappeared.

Questions and tasks

1. Tell us about the role of social democracy in the development of Western society after the Second World War.

2. What evolution did the conservative ideology undergo in the second half of the 20th century?

3. How do you understand the concept of "welfare state"?

4. How has the nature of social relations in capitalist society changed in the era of the "welfare state"?

5. What are the reasons for the current crisis of leftist ideology?

6. Make a report on the topic "Problems of the post-war development of the third world countries."