The question of who is the subject of the political process has been and remains very controversial. In accordance with the most “ancient” one, dating back to the political ideas of Plato and receiving theoretical justification in the philosophy of Hegel and F. Nietzsche, the elite theory, the main subjects of politics are the most gifted, “chosen” people, i.e. elites.

Marxist theory proceeds from the fact that the main creators of history and subjects of politics are social (political) classes, headed by a certain political organization, for example a party. Democratic concepts and theories declare the principles of democracy or the democratic majority as the subject of politics.

Most modern researchers agree that the subject of politics can be any formal and informal organizations that are aware of their political interests and are capable of defending them in political confrontation.

There is another point of view, according to which the subjects of the political process can only be formal subjects of political relations, fulfilling their political functions.

The question of the subjectivity of non-“political” actors, for example mass social movements, is very relevant for modern Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on it in more detail.

In Art. 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “1. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in Russian Federation is its multinational people... The people exercise their power directly, as well as through state authorities and local governments.” Consequently, from a legal point of view, social movements, as a certain part of the people, are still a source of political power and a collective subject of political relations. In addition, they have political powers and legal grounds to exercise their power not only through representative bodies, but also directly - through elections, referendums and mass protests.

Undoubtedly, subject of law And subject of politics - not identical concepts. The effectiveness of the conflict behavior of a “collective subject” in a political conflict depends on its mass character, organization, purposefulness and determination. The “Velvet Revolutions” in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and the popular revolt in Kyrgyzstan clearly demonstrated the ability of the masses to act as subjects and participants in the political process and achieve their goals. Who organized the performances of these “subjects” is a separate question.

The “collective subject” of the political process is not a homogeneous monolithic group. Already at the stage of its formation and development, it begins to be structured into: “activists”, “support groups”, “ordinary participants”, “curious fellow travelers”, etc. At the same time, either from their own environment or from the outside, legitimate ones appear, from the point of view of the “collective subject” ", leaders. For example, in Georgia and Ukraine, uprisings of the masses were organized (provoked) by well-known political leaders (Saakashvili, Yushenko), and the Polish Solidarity movement nominated its main leaders from among itself. Thus, the former electrician L. Walesa became not only one of the leaders of the movement, but also the president of the country. The leaders who lead the movement are empowered to represent the interests of the entire “collective subject.” Thus, subjectification occurs, and the mass movement itself becomes a “participant in the conflict,” which does not exclude its reverse transition.

Some authors propose to distinguish between concepts such as “subject of politics” and “political subject”. For subject of policy political activity is basic. These include the state, political parties, political institutions and organizations, political leaders, etc. political subjects include those who are forced to engage in politics in addition to their main activities (ordinary citizens, social groups, public organizations and etc.). If for the first - formal subjects - political power and power is an end in itself, then for the latter it is only a means of solving their social, economic and other problems.

The subject of the political process can be a real or potential subject of political relations. It does not matter whether this subject is an institutionalized political actor or became one only as a result of certain actions or events.

Subject of politics- is an actor in the political process (political relations), a bearer of substantive and practical political activity, capable of influencing the object of politics (power and power relations).

Subjects of politics can be an individual, a social group and organization, a political organization and movement, political institutions and government agencies; social community (class, nation, ethnic or religious group, society); political elites or counter-elites; a state, groups of states, the world community, i.e. all those who influence the political process in society or in the international arena.

Some researchers propose to classify policy subjects as follows:

• social level subjects: classes, ethnic groups, groups, individual, electorate, mafia, military-industrial complex, commercial bourgeoisie, etc.;
• institutional subjects of policy: state, party, trade union, parliament, president, university, etc.;
• functional subjects of policy: army, church, opposition, lobby, media, transnational corporations, etc.

A political subject must have the ability and ability to influence political processes, for example, make political decisions or suspend their action, organize political actions or prevent them from taking place, actively participate in certain political events or deliberately ignore them.

Due to his numerous qualities or position in the political structure, the subject of politics is endowed with certain powers to make decisions concerning the destinies of many people. At the same time, an ordinary citizen can also be a subject of politics if, through his actions and his position, he is able to attract the attention of broad social strata, the political elite and have a certain influence on the political process. The subject is active by nature and purposeful in his activities.

In real politics, the subjects, as a rule, are political elites and leaders who can be members of certain political groups, parties, movements, and head state institutions. Large social communities, protecting their interests, can also act as subjects of politics. But the heterogeneity of interests and the difficulty of coordinating their activities often lead to them becoming an object of manipulation in someone else’s political “game.”

The role of the subject in the political process, as already noted, is decisive. Therefore, he must also have the necessary strong-willed qualities and organizational skills in order to attract to his side the number of supporters and appropriate resources necessary to achieve the goal. The tragedy of modern Russian society is that the main social strata and classes, due to their passivity and disorganization, are actually excluded from politics. Public policy in the country is ostentatious, declarative in nature, and real political decisions are developed and adopted by shadow politics and the shadow economy in the interests of the ruling elite.

Personality as a subject of politics

Personality- this is a set (system) of socially significant qualities that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society, as a product of social development, this social characteristic of a person, which is determined by the measure of a person’s assimilation of social experience.

In the system of political relations, a person is a bearer of certain political qualities and represents an element of the political system.

Some researchers associate the concept of “personality” with a person’s active life position or his involvement in political activities. Thus, V. A. Maltsev believes that “a person is then a person when he takes an active social position”, “when the results of real politics threaten the interests of not only the membership group, but also personal interests themselves, the person (and not impersonality!) is necessarily included in political activity."

Such a definition of personality, in our opinion, is unlawful scientific point vision. Any person who has undergone a certain socialization and acquired socially significant qualities (even negative ones) is a person.

As for social activity or involvement in political activity, these are qualitative characteristics of an individual in certain types of activity and have nothing to do with the concept of “personality.” A socially passive individual who does not participate in politics may have many very important social qualities, i.e. be a person, but are not subject politicians.

Personality as a subject of politics is an individual who takes an active and conscious part in political activity and has a certain influence on the political process.

Aristotle also said that man is a political being, since he lives in a state and is forced, one way or another, to engage in politics. To this statement of the ancient thinker we can add the following: if a person himself does not engage in politics (does not want, does not know how, etc.), then he still becomes the object of someone else’s politics.

J. Locke was the first in scientific theory to distinguish between concepts such as “personality,” “society,” and “state,” and put the individual in first place in terms of importance. This is how a theory arose that presupposes freedom of personal individuality, initiative, enterprise, and subjectivity.

With the emergence and development of civil society, a movement begins from “we” to “I”, from an impersonal mass of subjects guided by the instructions of the authorities to free individual citizens capable of defending their political interests.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Citizens of Russia can freely express their views and beliefs (if they are not extremist in nature); join public organizations and movements; create public organizations and political parties yourself; take part in representative government bodies; be elected to any representative bodies and power structures; participate in the management of state affairs.

However, it is necessary to distinguish between personality - subject of law and personality - subject of politics. To become a real subject of politics, an individual must have a certain political capital, have his own (group) political goals and interests and engage in political activities to realize them. An individual who is able to attract significant political potential to his side and is ready to defend his interests in real confrontation becomes a subject of the political process. A political subject who avoids political struggle loses his “subjectivity” (the status of a political subject). For example, the President of Kyrgyzstan A. Akaev, during popular unrest in the spring of 2005, trying to avoid bloodshed, left the country and lost his presidential post. Nicholas II abdicated the throne in February 1917 and turned from a subject of political conflict into its victim.

You can select the following options participation (non-participation) of an individual in politics:

• active participation, when politics is a profession, calling or meaning of life for an individual;
• situational participation, when an individual participates in politics, solving his personal or group problems, or fulfilling his civic duty, for example, by participating in elections or expressing the position of his social group at a political rally;
• motivated non-participation, as a protest against the current policy;
• mobilization participation when an individual is forced to take part in certain socio-political events or events. Such participation is most characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes;
• suspension from any political events, reluctance to participate in the political process, due to personal apoliticality and passivity.

In the first cases, the individual acts as a subject of politics, since to one degree or another he can influence the political process. In the cases specified in clauses 4 and 5, the individual is not the subject of the policy. Apolitical and passive individuals are easily susceptible to political manipulation and, as a rule, become an object in “alien” politics. At the same time, it is appropriate to recall the words that have become an aphorism: “If you do not want to get involved in politics, then sooner or later politics itself will deal with you.”

The degree of a person’s involvement in politics depends on a number of subjective and objective factors, including:

• the level of political culture, civic consciousness and individual social activity of the individual;
• the degree of infringement of personal and group interests and the desire to protect them;
• objectively established conditions and prerequisites stimulating socio-political changes in society;
• the socio-political and economic situation that has arisen in society (region);
• possession of various types of capital (economic, political, symbolic, etc.), allowing an individual to rely on the support of certain social groups.

The vast majority of ordinary citizens have the opportunity to become (feel like) subjects of politics only during certain periods, for example, during elections, referendums, political demonstrations, etc. In normal times, subjective political activity is the monopoly of professionals who, according to P. Bourdieu, produce and offer citizens to choose a political “product” that meets, first of all, the interests of monopolists. Therefore, a real subject of politics can only be an individual who has the support of a certain part of the political elite or broad social strata.

In the Russian political system, the number of ordinary citizens who are subjects of politics is very limited, since there are no sufficiently developed institutions of civil society and the corresponding legal framework that would facilitate the involvement of citizens in political activities.

Participants in the political process and political participation

Large social communities become direct political subjects, as a rule, during mass political events: uprisings, revolutions, etc. But in calmer times, they participate in the political process through their representatives, i.e. indirectly. Therefore, in such cases, the definition of “participants in the political process” is more suitable for them.

Participants in the political process- these are individuals, groups, organizations, work collectives, social communities, etc., taking part in certain political events or political life generally.

If a political subject, as a rule, has his own interests and goals in politics, his own ways and methods of achieving these goals and shows increased political activity and initiative, then the participant, as a rule, does not possess all of the listed qualities. He may consciously or not quite consciously take part in political events, may accidentally be involved in these events or become a participant under coercion. For example, under the communist regime, the authorities in the USSR forced people to participate in mass political events (subbotniks, rallies, demonstrations, etc.), and various forms of punishment were applied to those who did not want to be “extras” in someone else’s political game.

During the development of political events, subjects and participants may change places. Thus, an ordinary participant in a mass political event may realize his interest in politics and become a leader or be elected to a leading political position; and a former political functionary, having lost legitimacy and his position, can join the ranks of ordinary participants in the political process.

In each state, depending on the level of development of civil society and the political culture of citizens, on historical traditions and other factors, one or another form and degree of involvement of citizens in the political process develops. This involvement of citizens in politics is called political participation.

Political participation should be distinguished from such similar concepts as political activity and political behavior.

Political activity represents a collection organized actions policy subjects aimed at implementing common tasks political system.

Political behavior reflects the qualitative characteristics of participation and activity.

Political participation is the involvement of citizens in the political process, in certain political actions. Here we're talking about first of all, about the participation in politics of citizens who do not claim the “title” of professional politicians, for example, the participation of ordinary voters in the election campaign.

The involvement of citizens in the political process, as mentioned above, depends on many factors, including the confidence of a particular voter that his vote in the elections will have at least some positive impact on solving his personal problems and improving the general situation in country.

But in real life Some citizens, disappointed in the effectiveness of their personal participation in the political process, do not want to participate in it, others do not participate due to their passivity, and others ignore political events for reasons of principle. There is a category of citizens who do not have the opportunity and means to take part in the political process. For example, such people prefer to work on their jobs on election day. garden plot. Aristotle pointed out this problem. He, in particular, complained that middle-income people are little involved in politics, since they are forced to earn their living when others are protesting.

In political theory, the following reasons and grounds for the participation of individuals and groups in the political process are distinguished:

• the desire to realize one’s interests, to benefit from political participation;
• participation as a desire to protect one’s interests, for example, to prevent a reduction in production in a certain industry;
• the desire to express one’s loyalty to the existing regime of power or to support one or another political party or movement;
• wish life success and public recognition through participation in politics;
• understanding public duty and exercising one’s own civil rights;
• understanding (awareness) of the social significance of the upcoming political event.

There is also such a mechanism for involvement in the political process as mobilization participation. It involves the use in various ways coercion or encouragement in order to attract citizens to participate in a particular political event. For example, during the Soviet era, a person who refused to go to a vote or rally could be deprived of his thirteenth salary or the queue for housing could be pushed back. During the presidential elections in Yakutia at the end of 2001, voters were lured to the polling stations with valuable gifts.

There are two main forms of political participation of citizens in the political process: direct and indirect.

Direct participation implies that an individual or group personally participates in a particular political event, for example, in the elections of members of parliament. Indirect participation is carried out through its representatives. For example, a popularly elected parliament, on behalf of its voters, forms a government, issues laws, that is, carries out political governance of the country.

Researchers share the problem different kinds participation into three main types:

• participation-solidarity aimed at supporting the existing political system;
• participation-demand or protest aimed at partial or radical change in the existing course of development of society;
• deviant participation - the use of unconstitutional, including violent, methods with the aim of overthrowing the existing regime (A. Marshall).

The role, meaning and forms of political participation largely depend on the type of political system and political regime in the country. In a democratic system, political participation is one of the forms of citizen participation in government. It performs such important functions as putting forward demands for making the necessary political decisions, coordinating the political course of the government and the president, and monitoring the implementation of certain political decisions. Political participation can also confirm or deny the legitimacy of an existing political regime. Most important function political participation in a democratic society - participation in elections with the aim of forming state authorities. Moreover, political participation is effective form political socialization citizens. By taking part in political events, citizens develop certain political qualities.

In a totalitarian political system, as a rule, only one form of political participation of citizens is allowed - mobilization. Initiatives not sanctioned by the authorities are punishable. Usually, for the next demonstration of the unity of the people and the ruling elite (party or leader), parades, processions, rallies, election campaigns are held, the forms of conduct, the number of participants and the results of which are predetermined by the ruling regime. Such mobilization participation is one of the methods of political manipulation and an imitation of the real participation of citizens in the political process.

The problem of personality in political science has at least three main aspects: 1) the person himself with his inherent individual traits and qualities: intellectual, emotional, volitional; 2) a person as a representative of a group: status, class, socio-ethnic, elite, masses, etc., and also as a performer of a certain political role: voter, member of an organization, parliamentarian; 3) the individual as a conscious, active participant in social and political life, a person who usually interacts with the authorities and acts as the subject and object of the influence of politics.

The place of man in political life in general terms has been considered in many political teachings. Already in ancient times, teachings appeared that differently assessed the individual’s attitude to politics and the state. The most influential of them are the teachings of Confucius, Plato and Aristotle.

Confucius developed a paternalistic concept of the state, according to which the state was represented as one large patriarchal family, in which all power belongs to the ruler-father. In the paternalistic concept of power, the ordinary person is given the role of a simple executor of the royal will, i.e. passive, unconscious participant in politics.

In Plato's political concept, a totalitarian interpretation of personality was developed. With this understanding of the individual, the question of its autonomy and political role is obviously excluded and the person acts only as an object of power.

In Aristotle's teachings, the political life of society was considered in relation to human nature. Aristotle considers the individual to be a political being by nature due to his natural predestination to live in society, a collective. In the state, as the highest form of communication between people, human nature is realized - the individual becomes an organic part of a living and integral political organism. Although Aristotle advocates the priority of the state in relations with the citizen, unlike Plato, he is an opponent of the nationalization of society. In general, Aristotle, like his predecessors, does not separate the individual and society from the state.

In Machiavelli's political concept, man was viewed as a negative element, and relations between people were characterized by the formula “man is a wolf to man.” People unite into a crowd of dark and uneducated people. According to Machiavelli, a ruler must consider all people to be evil. However, he was also a theorist of organizational human behavior. His name is associated with the theory of elites, the technology of effective leadership.

The role of personality in politics in general has been considered in many political teachings. However, the predominant consideration was the role of prominent politicians in relation to the activities of the masses, classes, or even the crowd. In political teachings, it was mainly about the political role of outstanding personalities - statesmen, leaders of political movements, ideologists, leaders, i.e. those who had a significant influence on politics and the masses. Therefore, policies are often personified and given the name of the person who defined or implemented them. At the same time, the question of the role of the “ordinary” or “mass” individual in politics turned out to be the least developed. And only in the second half of the 20th century. under the influence of the crash totalitarian regimes and further democratization of public life, quite serious attention began to be paid to this direction in political teachings.

Politics in any manifestation is somehow reflected in destinies ordinary people. In this sense, we can say that the final object of politics is always the ordinary citizen.

This circumstance determines the active position of the ordinary citizen in political life, i.e. so that he acts as a subject of politics.

The active inclusion of the individual in the political process requires certain prerequisites. They can be divided into three groups: material, socio-cultural and political-legal. Experience shows that for a person to participate in normal political activities, the primary satisfaction of his vital needs is necessary. It has been noted that the richer the society, the more open it is to democratic forms of functioning. The level of well-being has a significant impact on a person's political beliefs and orientations.

A necessary condition for ensuring effective opportunities for an individual to influence the state and its bodies is the political culture of the individual, especially such a cultural factor as education. Lenin's famous saying is that an illiterate person is outside politics. This means that an illiterate person stands outside of personally conscious politics, is an object of political actions, and not their subject. And vice versa, the higher a person’s level of education, the more politically oriented he is and, most importantly, predisposed to democratic orientations, attitudes and actions.

Political and legal factors are also an essential prerequisite for active political participation. These include a democratic political regime, the dominance of a democratic political culture in society, legal support for democratic procedures for the formation of all power structures, and the participation of members of society at all stages of political decisions.

Thus, the political activity of an individual is based on a set of certain prerequisites that either contribute to the development of political activity, the disclosure of the potential qualities of a person as a socio-political figure, the formation of the individual as an actual subject of the political life of society, or significantly complicate all these processes and preserve political apathy and passivity .

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The problem of the individual as a subject of political activity is not limited to the conditions in which its political functions are carried out. Much depends on a person’s political activity, on the degree to which he realizes his role as a political subject. In this regard, two aspects are usually distinguished - the participation of ordinary citizens in social and political life and the political activity of persons for whom politics becomes practically a professional occupation.

To denote the actions of ordinary citizens in the sphere of politics, the concept of “political participation” is used. It usually means the participation in politics of autonomous, private citizens who are neither political leaders nor functionaries of government structures or political parties. Political participation involves overcoming the individual’s alienation from power and politics, and his active involvement in the political process.

The political activity of citizens varies. In modern democracies, the political activity of citizens is manifested mainly by participation in voting in elections, referendums, and in various forms of pressure on power structures when making and implementing certain important decisions.

The most important mechanism for involving citizens in the political process is the activities of political parties, socio-political organizations and movements. They are the ones who most often act as initiators and organizers of such citizen actions as participation in election campaigns, demonstrations, rallies, collecting signatures for petitions, etc. The bulk of the population shows moderate interest in politics and limits itself to voting in elections and occasional participation in local government events. A sharp increase in political activity occurs during periods of political instability. However, such activity can be destructive.

Citizen participation in politics is one of the central indicators quality features political systems, the degree of their democracy. In a democratic society, this is mass participation, free and effective in resolving issues that affect the essential interests of citizens. In an authoritarian society, part of the population is completely or partially excluded from participation in politics. Totalitarianism, on the contrary, strives for mobilizational involvement in ritual actions to support the regime of the maximum share of the population.

From the point of view of political subjectivity, the following main personality types are distinguished:

a) a person with high political activity, participating in political life. Activists are constantly interested political problems and informed about them. This may be a citizen - a member of a political or public organization, purposefully and voluntarily involved in political activity; public, socio-political figure; a professional politician for whom political activity is the main, sole or main occupation; political leader, leader of the highest authority - formal or informal;

b) the identity of the political observer with different levels competence, showing interest in politics, but not personally participating in it. If she participates, then only under the influence of any arguments or circumstances that she considers dominant. This category of people is also constantly interested in politics, has their own opinion about it and can influence political influence on others, often shaping public opinion;

c) the personality of a sufficiently competent critic, participating or not participating in politics. She is well informed, but her attitude towards power and politics is usually negative;

d) a passive person with a neutral, negative or indifferent attitude towards politics;

e) an apolitical and aloof person with a negative attitude towards his participation in politics, not interested in it and knowing little about it.

Activists have a positive attitude towards personal participation in political life and democratic institutions; they show significant interest in politics and public life, and are well informed. Leaders heading political movements and institutions emerge predominantly from their midst. Conversely, those alienated from public life have a negative attitude towards politics and are inert. Of course, passive, apolitical and alienated citizens cannot be genuine subjects of politics. They are most often the object of political manipulation.

The basis for the differences between active and passive participants in socio-political life are the motives and attitudes by which specific individuals are included in political activity.

Political motives that incline people to seek or participate in power can be egocentric and sociocentric. Egocentric are motives that concentrate on the individual’s own personality. Sociocentric (or public) - motives that concentrate on the benefit of some broader social group of people, a national community, or residents of a certain region. These two motives of behavior are often combined, mutually reinforcing each other and leading to the same type of action.

What are the motives why, under the same conditions, one person shows a willingness to participate in political life, while another will avoid it? In this situation, the reasons for the activity of one and the passivity of the other should be sought in their personality traits, family upbringing, social environment, and lifestyle.

What personality traits of an adult or young person contribute to a departure from politics and the adoption of a more or less consciously apolitical role in society? An individual’s political activity or passivity is a consequence of a number of personal qualities.

This is, first of all, the strength of individuality, which includes such traits as self-confidence, in one’s own competence, a tendency to communicate, a desire for self-affirmation, an attempt to prove one’s superiority, etc. These traits are positively correlated with participation in political and social life. Most people who avoid politics display a weak personality and lack confidence in their strengths and capabilities.

Positively correlated with participation in political life is the individual’s personal involvement, which forces him to take an active part in various life situations. People who show weak involvement and passivity in other life situations avoid politics and participation in public life.

People’s high intellectual level and interest in learning new things have a positive effect on people’s attitude to politics, and avoidance of participation in political life is often characteristic of people with low intellectual activity.

Psychologists believe that participation in politics can be facilitated by extroverted tendencies, characteristic of individuals who are most ready and directly responsive to external events, seek communication with others and feel good in their society. And the opposite of them are introverted tendencies, characteristic of a person whose mental activity is aimed mainly at his own inner world experiences and feelings, and represent a psychological prerequisite for “escape from politics.”

The need to relieve internal tension often inclines people to participate in social activities, but at the same time prevents them from achieving success in it. People with very strong psychological tension and aggressiveness fail and therefore avoid participating in politics. At the same time, persons free from aggressiveness and psychological tension do not seek to participate in politics and may even avoid it because of the conflicts associated with this tension.

Participation in political activity can be influenced by the example of a popular political leader, the idea that a simple common sense. Under the influence of the media, which propagate political ideas in a popular form, many people consider themselves entitled to make political assessments and recommendations.

The primary subject of politics is the personality (individual). It is the individual, her interests, value orientations and goals that act as the “measure of politics”, the driving principle of the political activity of nations, classes, and parties. The problem of personality in political science has at least three main aspects:

1) personality as individual psychophysiological (emotional, intellectual, etc.) characteristics of a person, his specific habits, value orientations, style of behavior, etc. When analyzing personality from this angle, the main attention is usually paid to political leaders, from individual characteristics which big politics often depends on;

2) a person as a representative of a group: professional, socio-ethnic, class, ruling elite, masses, etc., as well as as a performer of a certain political role: voter, party member, parliamentarian, minister. This approach to the individual, as it were, dissolves it in larger social formations or the roles prescribed for it and does not allow reflecting the autonomy and activity of the individual as a specific subject of politics;

3) personality as a relatively independent, active participant in political and social life, possessing reason and free will, not only universal, but also unique traits, i.e., as an integrity that cannot be reduced to its individual social (professional, class, national, etc. .) characteristics and having the political status of a citizen or subject of the state. It is in this aspect that a person usually interacts with power, performs certain political duties and acts as a subject and at the same time an object, i.e. subject to policy influence.

Interest in what is happening predetermines the possibility of transforming an individual from an outside observer of events, indifferent to the actions of the authorities, calmly looking at changes in the leadership of the state, into a subject of politics. To transform a person into a real participant in political events, a number of important conditions are necessary:

1. an individual’s understanding of his own interests and needs, as well as the interests and needs of citizens belonging to other social groups;

2. the individual’s understanding of the connection between the realization of his interests and needs and the actions of power structures;

3. awareness of the state of the economy, domestic and foreign policy, decisions of legislative, executive and judicial bodies, actions of local administration, etc.;

4. social status;

5. material capabilities;

6. life goals;

7.individual inclinations;

8. education;

9. temperament;

10. level of culture.

Leadershipis a managerial relationship between a leader and followers, based on an effective combination of various sources of power for a given situation and aimed at encouraging people to achieve common goals.

A prerequisite for leadership is the possession of power in specific formal or informal organizations of various levels and scales, from the state and even a group of states to government agencies, local government or popular and social groups and movements. The formalized power of the leader is secured by law. But in all cases, the leader has social, psychological, and emotional support in society or in groups of people who follow him.

There are formal and informal leadership. In the first case, influence on subordinates comes from the position of their position. The process of influencing people through personal abilities, skills and other resources is called informal leadership.

A leader must be attractive moral and human qualities. The personal merits of a leader are a role model, a subject of respect. The moral character of a leader attracts attention and plays a significant role in his successes or failures.

Leadership styles:

	Democratic	Liberal
1. Concentration of all power and responsibility in the hands of the leader 2. Personal goal setting and choice of means to achieve them 3. Communication flows come predominantly from above	1. Delegation of powers with retention of key positions by the leader 2. Decision making is divided into levels based on participation 3. Communications are carried out actively in two directions	1. Removal of responsibility by the leader and renunciation in favor of the group or organization 2. Providing the group with the opportunity to self-govern in the mode desired by the group 3. Communications are built mainly horizontally

1. Personality as a subject and object of politics.

2.Political socialization of personality: essence, stages, agents.

3.Rights, freedoms, responsibilities of the individual in society.

1. In a civilized society, politics is carried out for people and through people. A person is not only an object, but also a subject of politics, its creator and executor, when he is involved in political-power relations, in the process of decision-making and management.

Already in ancient times, the relationship between the individual and the state and the place of man in political life were discussed. You can select three types of relationship between the state and the individual: 1) personality for the state; 2) the state for the individual; 3) harmonious combination of personality and states. Let's look at each type:

1).Personality for the state. In Plato's ideal state projects, the individual is only an object of power. Plato gives priority to the state over the individual. The state, led by a wise king or aristocracy, must affirm unanimity and collectivism, monitor the correctness of thoughts, and regulate human life. The question of human freedom and his participation in political affairs is not raised.

2).State for the individual. Modern democratic states are based on a liberal understanding of the relationship between the individual, society and the state. It was liberalism that separated these concepts, affirmed the value of the human person and the “from birth” equality of all people, inalienable human rights: the right to life, freedom, property. The state is created with the aim of protecting natural human rights. The source of power is the individual, and the state is controlled and accountable to the people.

3).Harmonious combination of personality and state. According to social liberalism, the state is assigned a number of social functions: to take care of human rights, social security, employment, health care. The state should be used to achieve the common good, maintain and improve the quality of life of people. On the basis of Christian teaching and social democratic ideology, the principles of interdependence of the individual, society and state are affirmed.

Liberal the principle of the unique value of each person means respect for each individual by the state and society. The principle of solidarity- this is the responsible performance by a person of his social duties, the care of everyone for everyone and everyone for everyone. Third Christian principle teachings – subsidiarity means the responsibility of each person for his own well-being. The state should provide support only to those who cannot provide for themselves: minors, the disabled, the elderly.

In modern democratic states, people and government interact both in the sphere of politics and in matters of income distribution and social policy. The status of the individual as a source of power, the primary and main subject of politics is generally recognized.

2.Political socialization– this is the process of formation and development of political consciousness and political behavior of a person.

Stages of political socialization:

The political world of a child is already formed in preschool period, most significant development is happening between 11 and 13 for years, one’s own political “I” is developed by the age of 18, identification with political parties and movements is fixed at age 20-30 years, after which it either increases even more or begins to decrease.

At an early stage, the individual receives and masters a certain amount of socio-political knowledge. Then, as a result of socio-political practice, this knowledge is tested for viability and transformed into beliefs regarding the truth or falsity of socio-political actions. Based on political convictions and analysis of one’s own experience, a political orientation personality. It expresses not only the attitude towards politics, but also the attitude towards the forces operating in it (the parties, the government). Political orientation determines political behavior, because is source material to determine ways to realize human needs.

Agents of political socialization: family, school, university, work collective, public organizations, mass movements, political parties.

3. The status of the individual as a source of power, the primary and main subject of politics is generally recognized.

Legal status of the individual is a system of individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities recognized by the state. Their content is enshrined in constitutions and determined by real social relations.

Classification of human rights.

1).Human rights are usually divided into civilian, political, economic, social and cultural.

2).It is also accepted to divide all rights into negative and positive, which is associated with a negative and positive understanding of freedom. Negative meaning of freedom defined as the absence of coercion, positive– as freedom of choice, a person’s ability to achieve his goals. Negative rights protect personality from interference of the state and other people in its affairs and life. These rights are not granted, but are protected and guaranteed by the state; they do not depend on the capabilities and resources of the state (equality of all before the law, the right to life and integrity, etc.).

Positive rights establish the obligations of the state, individuals, and organizations to provide citizens with certain benefits.: the right to work, rest, education, property, housing, social security in old age, etc. The implementation of positive rights requires sufficient resources and a well-developed economy.

Civil rights and freedoms form the basis of the constitutional and legal status of a citizen of the state. They are designed to protect a person from arbitrariness on the part of the state and other people. These are: the right to freedom and equality, to life, freedom from interference with personal and family life, the right to protection of honor and dignity, freedom of thought, religion, belief, etc.

If civil rights determine the relations of all individuals among themselves, then political rights determine the relationship between the state, government and the individual. Political norms include legal norms that determine a person’s position in the state, the possibility of his participation in the management of society, holding public positions, and in the formation of government bodies. Political rights and freedoms include voting rights, freedom of speech, freedom to receive information, the right to hold public office, the right to create political organizations, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to citizenship.

Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948, mentions that every person has responsibilities before society. Rights and responsibilities form a single whole; they are inseparable. No society is yet able to satisfy all the legitimate needs of its citizens and others. Therefore, excessive attention to rights and forgetfulness of human responsibilities adversely affects the relationship between the individual and society. Therefore, it is important to form not only respect for the law that prohibits any actions, but also the moral and political responsibility of people for their actions.

Bibliography:

Maltsev V.A. Fundamentals of Political Science. M., 1997.

Mukhaev R.T. Political science. M., 1997.

Political science: Course of lectures. Ed. Denisyuk N.P. Minsk, 1998.

The close connection between man and politics was emphasized by thinkers of the Ancient World (in particular, Plato, Aristotle) ​​and the Renaissance. However, the special role of the individual as a subject of politics is recognized by political scientists in our time. This is due to the acceleration of the process of political socialization of the individual, increasing the level of his political culture, changing values, interests and needs.

In political science, a distinction is made between the individual and the collective subject. An individual subject is a consciously and responsibly acting person, who in his actions is guided by socially significant interests and goals and participates in the struggle for their implementation. Such individuals are, first of all, political leaders. In addition to them, individual subjects of politics are ordinary people. The formation of an individual as a subject of politics occurs gradually as social maturation occurs, in the process of political socialization. The category of personality in political science has at least three main aspects: 1. Personality as individual psychophysiological (emotional, intellectual, etc.) characteristics of a person, his specific habits, value orientations, style of behavior, etc. When analyzing personality from this angle, the main attention is usually paid to political leaders, on whose individual characteristics big politics depend. 2. Personality as a representative of a group: status, professional, socio-ethnic, class, elite, masses, etc. And also as a performer of a certain political role: voter, party member, parliamentarian, minister. This approach to personality seems to dissolve it in larger social formations or the roles prescribed to her and does not allow to reflect the autonomy and activity of the individual as a specific subject of politics. 3. Personality as a relatively independent, active participant in political and social life, possessing reason and free will, not only universal human traits, but also unique traits of its kind, that is, as an integrity that cannot be reduced to its individual social (professional, class, national etc.) characteristics and having the political status of a citizen or subject of the state. It is in this aspect that a person usually acts as a subject and an object, a subject of influence of politics.

To determine the place and role of the individual in the system of political relations, the political and legal conditions of the subjectivity of the individual are fundamentally important, i.e. legal status of a citizen. Its main dimension is civil rights and obligations and their guarantees. A person can become a true subject of political relations only in a democratic society, where he is granted broad political rights, freedoms and opportunities to satisfy his political needs and protect himself. social interests. The level of influence of an individual on political life is determined by both individual and social qualities. TO individual qualities should include temperament, strength of character, degree of development of consciousness, political thinking, political culture etc. Social qualities are also multifaceted. The primary factor determining the conditions for an individual’s participation in politics is the individual’s social status: class, family status, profession, etc.

An individual’s participation in politics directly depends on his objective involvement in specific social problems and on his access to power resources.

Forms of political behavior and participation of the individual: 1. A person with high political activity, constantly taking part in political life; 2. A person professionally involved in politics; 3. A person who occasionally takes part in politics (elections, actions); 4. A person who shows interest in politics, but does not personally participate in it; 5. Passive personality with a neutral or negative attitude towards politics;

Any person is objectively included in political activity. The degree of understanding of its mechanism, desire and ability to get involved in it predetermines the citizen’s place in the sphere of politics. Sometimes it is acquired, sometimes it is inherited in the literal or figurative sense, even due to customs or tradition. The active participation of an individual in the political life of society has multifaceted significance.

Firstly, through such participation, conditions are created for a more complete disclosure of all human potentials, for his creative self-expression, which in turn constitutes a necessary prerequisite for the most effective solution public tasks. Thus, a qualitative transformation of all aspects of life presupposes the full intensification of the human factor, the active and conscious participation of the broad masses in this process. But are creativity, conscious activity, and interested participation possible without democracy, trust, and openness? The answer is clear: no.

Secondly, the overall development of man as a subject of politics is an indispensable condition close connection between political institutions and civil society, control over the activities of political and administrative structures by the people, a means of countering bureaucratic distortions in the activities of the administrative apparatus, and separation of administrative functions from society. It is known, for example, that an authoritarian, administrative-command style of leadership alienates people from power, creates isolation, insincerity, and alienates the administrative apparatus from the people. It is obvious that this style is as ineffective as the predominantly emergency path of economic development is ineffective. An alternative to authoritarianism is a democratic method of leadership and communication with people, respect for a person’s opinion and political position.

Thirdly, through the development of democracy, society satisfies the need of its members to participate in the management of state affairs. Man does not live by bread alone. Any achievements of an enterprise, industry, region, national economy as a whole are, by and large, an intermediate result, but the final result is always a person. Participation in the democratic political process is a way of self-affirmation of a person, the formation of a culture of communication, skills of management and self-government. It can be assumed that as the basic material needs of a person are more and more fully satisfied, his cultural level, self-awareness and self-affirmation grow, the needs and interests of participation in socio-political life will develop. A comprehensively developed person is, among other things, an active public figure. Obviously, the further, the more widely our society will face this trend. Providing the individual with opportunities for conscious, active participation in socio-political life is a way of elevating the human in a person.

Each individual, whether he wants it or not, is a citizen of the state (this is the most direct, common political role for all individuals and the starting socio-political orientation); each individual is a member of a social group, a representative of a nation or people, etc. The objective group affiliation itself determines, to some extent, the conditions for the individual existence of a person. Therefore, even if someone were apolitical, even if he believed that he was free from any politics, he is still “woven” into politics, at least in such a way that he is the subject of political influences. This implies the presence of at least three reserves for expanding and intensifying the human factor in politics. Firstly, due to a quantitative increase in the number of people (new political recruits) taking direct or conscious participation in politics. For example, expanding the electorate when solving particularly important or fundamental issues of social development. Secondly, due to the development, improvement and accumulation of political experience by permanent participants and creators of political activity. Thirdly, the development of the system of political socialization.

The active inclusion of the individual in the political process requires certain prerequisites. They can be divided into three groups: material, socio-cultural and political and legal. Experience shows that for a person to participate in normal political activities, it is necessary to first satisfy his needs for basic food products, goods and services, living conditions, achieving a certain level of general education and vocational training, general and political culture.

A particularly strong influence on the political consciousness and behavior of an individual, according to many political scientists, is exerted by such a cultural factor as education. There is a well-known Leninist saying that illiterate people cannot have anything to do with politics. Precisely because of their lack of education, they can become an object of political manipulation, be drawn, contrary to their interests, into extremist political movements, etc. An illiterate person stands outside of conscious politics, is an object of political actions, and not their subject. In foreign political science, an unambiguous and, apparently, generally accepted conclusion has been made: the higher a person’s level of education, the more politically oriented he is and, most importantly, predisposed to democratic orientations, attitudes and actions. In particular, it indicates that education broadens a person’s political horizons, helps him understand the need for tolerance, significantly protects him from adherence to extremist doctrines, and increases a person’s ability to do rational choice during election campaigns.

A person can become a true subject of political relations only in a democratic society, where a person is granted broad political rights, freedoms and opportunities to satisfy his political needs.