Introduction

1.2 Main features of the current stage of world politics

1.3 The global political process in the research of foreign scientists

1.4 Main trends of the modern world political process

2. Geopolitical position of modern Russia

3. Foreign policy of the Russian Federation

3.1 The modern world and foreign policy of the Russian Federation

3.2 Priorities of the Russian Federation in solving global problems

3.2.1 Formation of a new world order

3.2.2 Rule of law in international relations

3.2.3 Strengthening international security

3.2.4 International economic and environmental cooperation

3.2.5 International humanitarian cooperation and human rights

3.2.6 Information support of foreign policy activities

3.3 Regional priorities

3.4 Formation and implementation of foreign policy of the Russian Federation

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

The concept of “world politics” is one of the most commonly used and at the same time least clear in political science. One of the main problems associated with world politics is precisely the problem of its identification as an objectively existing phenomenon. Indeed, how to distinguish world politics from international relations? The question is all the more difficult because the very concept of “international relations” is quite vague and still causes debate among researchers regarding its content. We often come across the point of view according to which world politics as a whole is nothing more than an abstraction expressing the view of a political scientist on international relations, conditionally highlighting the political side, the political dimension,

A different approach, expressed by A. Bovin and shared by V. Lukin, brings much more clarity to the problem under consideration: ““World politics” is the activity, interaction of states in the international arena; "international relations" is a system of real connections between states, acting as result their actions, and as a kind of environment, the space in which world politics exists. In addition to states, various movements, organizations, parties, etc. are subjects and participants in world communication. World politics is an active factor shaping international relations. International relations, constantly changing under the influence of world politics, in turn, influence its content and character."

This position makes it easier to understand what is happening on the world stage and can well be taken as a starting point in the analysis of world politics. However, it would be useful to make some clarifications. The interaction of states on the world stage, bilateral and multilateral ties between them in various fields, rivalry and conflicts, the highest form of which is war, cooperation, the range of which extends from sporadic trade exchanges to political integration, accompanied by the voluntary renunciation of part of the sovereignty transferred to the “common” use" - all this is more accurately reflected by the term "international politics". As for the concept of “world politics,” it shifts the emphasis precisely to that increasingly prominent role. which non-traditional actors play in shaping the international environment, but do not displace the state as the main participant in international relations.

Obviously, differences exist not only between world politics and international relations, but also between foreign and international politics: the foreign policy of a country is a concrete, practical implementation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or its corresponding foreign policy department) of the basic principles of the state’s international policy developed by within its broader structures and designed to reflect its national interests. As for non-state participants in international relations, for many of them (for example, multinational corporations, international mafia groups, religious communities belonging to, say, the Catholic Church or Islam) international politics most often is not “external” (or at least not is considered as such). At the same time, such a policy simultaneously acts as:

a) “transnational” - because it is carried out in addition to this or that state, and often in spite of it

b) “denationalized” - since its subjects are groups of leaders whose state affiliation is, in fact, formal in nature (however, the phenomenon of “dual citizenship” often makes such a formality unnecessary).

Of course, the foreign and international policies of a state are closely connected not only with each other, but also with its internal policies, which is due, in particular, to such factors as a single basis and ultimate goal, a single resource base, a single subject, etc. ( This, by the way, explains the fact that analysis of foreign policy decisions is possible only taking into account the balance of internal political forces). At the same time, paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, the phenomena of “transnational” and even “denationalized” politics are increasingly becoming characteristic of interstate communication.

Indeed, as the Swiss researcher F. Briar shows, foreign policy is less and less the province of foreign ministries alone. Due to the increased need to jointly manage increasingly complex and numerous problems, it is becoming the property of most other government departments and structures. Various groups of national bureaucracies involved in international negotiations often strive for direct cooperation with their colleagues abroad, for coordinated actions with them. This leads to the development of intra-bureaucratic connections and interests that transcend government affiliations and borders, making the domestic and international spheres even more permeable.

1. The essence of the world political system

1.1 Basic conceptual approaches to the analysis of world politics

It should be emphasized that in the specialized literature, as a rule, no distinction is made between the terms “world politics”, “international politics” and “international relations”, which are most often considered interchangeable. Nevertheless, we can try to trace, taking into account the above distinction of terms (which, of course, is quite conditional), the general and special in the understanding of the content of world politics by supporters of various scientific schools and theoretical directions

Political realism and neorealism, neo-Marxism and transnationalism, institutionalism and the theory of international regimes.

First of all, it should be noted that, while offering different approaches to analyzing the problem, most of them are committed (albeit to varying degrees) to a systems approach. Thus, G. Morgenthau, one of the founding fathers of political realism, which remains the most influential theoretical direction to this day, wrote that international relations are as ancient as they are an independent political system. From the position of K. Waltz, the founder of the school of neorealism, a true theory of international relations should proceed not from particulars, but from the integrity of the world, making its starting point the existence of a global system, and not the states that are its elements. At the same time, fundamental importance is attached to the structure of interstate interactions, considered as their by-product. which, unexpectedly for the carriers (subjects) of these interactions, places their behavior within a certain framework, subordinating it to its own rules, which often have nothing to do with the goals and objectives of the subjects themselves.

Without an independent ontological status, the structure of interstate relations cannot be ignored by any state, including great powers. For example, all states are forced to bear military expenses, although this is an unreasonable waste of resources. The structure of the interstate system imposes on all countries a course of behavior in one or another policy area that may be contrary to their public interests. The structure allows us to understand and predict the behavior of states on the world stage. Just as in economics the state of the market is determined by the influence of several large firms that form an oligopolistic structure, world politics is determined by the influence of great powers, the configuration of the balance of their forces 7.

Supporters of neo-Marxism, placing the so-called world-system approach at the center of their analysis of world politics, adhere to a different point of view on its essence. So. according to I. Wallerstein, the integrity of the world, which is a global empire, is based on the laws of the capitalist mode of production

- "world-economy". The “center of the empire” is a small group of economically developed states, consuming the resources of the “world periphery”, and is a producer of industrial products and consumer goods necessary for the existence of the underdeveloped countries that comprise it. Thus, world politics appears as a constant struggle between the “center” and the “periphery” of the world system, acting as a consequence of the asymmetrical interdependence of states and peoples in the second half of the 20th century. At the same time, developed countries are interested in maintaining this state (which, in essence, is a state of dependence), while the countries of the “periphery,” on the contrary, strive to change it and establish a new world economic order. Ultimately, the main interests of both lie in the sphere of world politics and foreign policy actions, on the success of which their internal well-being depends.

Jewish organizations in the United States and Israel were outraged by the behavior of American Republican Senator John McCain, who during a visit to Kiev closely communicated with the leader of the nationalist Freedom party Oleg Tyagnibok, who is on the list of the 10 most sinister anti-Semites in the world. “McCain made a mistake. He clearly had no idea who he was on the same stage with. If he knew what Tyagnibok was, then this is much more serious. This shows how unscrupulous American politicians are,” Ephraim Zuroff, head of the Jerusalem branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told Izvestia.

In general, you need to understand that the “Dialogue of Civilizations” forum is precisely that “get-together”, that is, the most interesting thing there is not the official part (which, by the way, is structured in such a way that discussion is practically impossible), but the conversations “on the sidelines”. But even here you need to make an appropriate correction - you can never say in advance what reflects a person’s real opinion and what is well-thought-out disinformation, intentionally or unintentionally broadcast by your interlocutor. In addition, if the conversation is not one-on-one, then additional problems arise - since not everyone can say everything.

PUTIN AND OBAMA'S OVERALL SYRIA PLAN PUTS THE MIDDLE EAST INTO THE FAIR

After the United States and Russia agreed to continue the large-scale work begun earlier to resolve the Syrian conflict, the situation around this country begins to acquire new features, some of which are of a fundamental nature. In turn, political scientists are trying to reveal the intentions of the leaders of Russia and the United States about their further actions encrypted between the lines, since it is obvious that non-standard decisions on Syria can stimulate forces that consider themselves losers to strive to ruin the diplomatic process and drown it in numerous difficult technical aspects. Moreover, the end of the war in Syria follows an unexpected scenario for them. The countries of the region, which have made their mark on Russian-American contradictions, are in confusion.

SITUATION IN SYRIA - A VIEW FROM CHINA

These days, the issue of the use of “chemical weapons” in Syria is becoming more acute. The desire of the United States and some other Western countries to carry out a military intervention in Syria has suddenly intensified. Despite the fact that while there is no consensus about a specific time and place, “war” seems already inevitable. Regarding the unfinished work of the UN small group, the lack of evidence against the Syrian government, the use of force without the authorization of the UN Security Council, for some Western countries all this is of secondary importance. Whether it is a humanitarian disaster or the use of “chemical weapons,” it is unacceptable that some countries want to open fire on those who hold a different position, thereby benefiting. From Kosovo to Iraq and Libya, this game of Western states has long reached its apogee. After playing the same games for a long time, everyone understands the rules. The 10-year war in Iraq has claimed hundreds of civilian lives, and the motive for military action has long been recognized as a deception.

In the globalized world of today, the first problem is the equal distribution of resources among the planet's population. This was stated by the head of the economic research department of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Economics. Alexander Akimov on June 21 in Moscow during a video conference Moscow - Delhi on the topic “East - West: demographic problems. The main reasons for the rapid population growth are high birth rates in developing countries and a global increase in life expectancy.

It is still unclear what guides the Ukrainian authorities in their constant hesitation and maneuvering between the desires to dissolve in the EU and benefit from relations with Russia. But it can be stated with certainty that among the motives that prompt them to such behavior, there are absolutely no ones that in one form or another would bring real benefit to both the current Ukrainian leadership and the current Ukrainian state. If the Ukrainian leadership wants to prove that it has the leverage to create problems for Russia, then it is achieving this to a certain extent. But it achieves this at the cost of creating problems for Europe. And besides, it clearly demonstrates that his irresponsibility is comparable to the irresponsibility of Saakashvili’s Georgia.

Hundreds of millions of euros were secretly withdrawn through Cypriot banks in London and Moscow

Hundreds of millions of euros were transferred from Cyprus through representative offices of Cypriot banks in London and Moscow, while ordinary Cypriots could not withdraw more than 100 euros per day from ATMs. This was reported today by the Greek TV channel “Mega”. According to him, in Cyprus there is “sharp criticism of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, Panikos Dimitriadis, who during the crisis allowed branches of the Bank of Cyprus and the Cyprus People’s Bank /CHB/ to continue operating in London, and it became possible to withdraw large sums from accounts in Cypriot banks in the British capital and through a Russian bank in Moscow.”

Expert, philosopher, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Socrates” Ivan Fomin on his personal page on the social network Facebook expressed the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin was in vain not to go to Venezuela. “I think Putin should go to Chavez’s funeral. He was our true and sincere friend and ally, of which there are very few now, and also a major real politician, and this needs to be appreciated and celebrated. Our real friends would definitely appreciate this gesture, but by and large they don’t give a damn about enemies and fake friends.

Türkiye clears 'energy chessboard'

REX news agency expert, political scientist, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Price of the Question” Stanislav Stremidlovsky, notes in his article “Turkish endgame: Turkey is clearing the “energy chessboard”” that Ankara, in fact, completely blocked Kiev’s ability to solve its energy problems in the south and south -east direction. As Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said at a meeting with the US State Department Special Representative for Energy Affairs Carlos Pascual, Ukraine encountered unexpected problems during negotiations with Turkey on the transit of liquefied gas tankers across the Bosphorus, for which LNG is going to be built in Ukraine. terminal.

Eurasian Aerospace Defense: the role of strategic non-nuclear weapons

A fundamentally new phenomenon for the aerospace defense of the last two decades is the mass production and rapid modernization of military defense, which is rapidly acquiring the functions of strategic offensive and defensive potential. Meanwhile, this relationship has not yet attracted either political or public attention. In this regard, it is not a coincidence that attracts attention: the conversion of American SSBNs to SLCM carriers is proceeding in parallel with the deployment of regional missile defense systems. At the same time, instead of 16–20 SLBMs, more than 150 SLCMs are deployed on one SSBN. Almost all targets on Russian territory, which are considered as targets for a first (“disarming”) strike, could be under their potential attack.

I think that everyone knows what the Russian political system should be. Otherwise, they would not be indignant or happy, but would simply ignore all political events. Or is there no logic in my words?

Is an ideal system possible? I think it's possible. But we must also take into account time, that is, determine the system at each specific historical moment. Once upon a time a monarchy is better, and sometimes even a democracy.

For me, the political system that was described in the original version of the latest Russian Constitution is good enough. That is, the president of the country is elected once every 4 years, and no more than two terms. Election of governors, multi-party system, when the votes of opposition parties would not be appropriated by other parties. But if this system is ideal, then why is it so easy to change it? Anyone who comes to power in one way or another can easily cancel gubernatorial elections, or extend the presidential term to 99 years, or change the system of elections to the Duma. If this is possible, then is the system ideal? The ideal would be a system that would resist the wishes of certain individuals. However, it would really take into account the opinion of the majority of people. And how to do this?

On the other hand, if a system cannot change, then is it viable? What if, in fact, everyone is better off because the government doesn’t change? Why are gubernatorial elections necessary at all? Why are elections needed at all if the one who is already in power still counts and sums up the results? Maybe it would be ideal when we, the residents of the country, do not care who is in power?

Why do we need an ideal political system? I agree with the statement that the change of power should take place without revolutions, in accordance with the Constitution. This is why we need an ideal political system!

And yet - how to achieve the ideal? Is this possible? And now some main thesis:

Without a smart, progressive, responsible civil society, a political system that works for the benefit of the country's citizens is impossible.

If we, as a society, allow ourselves to be deceived in elections, allow the basic principles of the Constitution to be changed with impunity, then we deserve what exists now in Russia. And you just have to come to terms with it and not freak out. I personally have come to terms with it. I don't need any other political system to survive and live an average life. Yes, I will go to the polls and vote according to my conscience and my convictions. But if they call the police and ask, for example, not to write on a blog, then I won’t write. I'm afraid of power. And I have something to lose. Am I the only one? There are many of us, we are satisfied with what we have. And we will not rebel as long as it suits us. This is the law of self-preservation! But can we be considered a responsible civil society? Why not, because we are law-abiding. Even if the laws are against us. So, what is next?

The main function of the political system is to manage all social relations, all systems of a particular society. The political system accumulates the interests and needs of various political subjects, ranks them by importance and priority, and develops appropriate solutions to satisfy them. Thus, the system responds to the demands of the social environment and adapts to these changes.

Types of political systems

Political systems can be classified on different grounds. Depending on the character(the method of exercising political power) they are divided into totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic.

it is based on the law, which expresses the interests of this political class and its leader (tsar, emperor, general secretary, Fuhrer, etc.). In such a political system, the executive branch is dominant, and an independent judicial system does not exist.

IN liberal In political systems, power belongs to the economically dominant classes and is characterized by the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial). There is a system of “checks and balances” that prevents individual branches of government from becoming dominant, and an independent judiciary ensures that everyone is equal before the law.

In social democratic political systems, power belongs to a democratic, legal, social state and civil society, the basis of which is the middle class. This system is based on the separation of powers, based on the law, ensuring the freedom and responsibility of citizens. The branches of government are in relative harmony, controlled by civil society, as well as by democratic, fair, effective law.

Political systems can be divided into traditional and modernized, depending on the nature of civil society, the differentiation of political roles, and the method of justifying power. Traditional The political system is characterized by politically inactive citizens, weak differentiation of political roles, and a sacred or charismatic justification for power. IN modernized political systems have a developed civil society, a variety of political roles, a reasonable legal way of justifying power.

The stability of a political system depends on the ability of government authorities to make decisions and enforce them without the use of force. The latter is possible with the legitimacy of the government and its decisions. The effectiveness of a political system means the population's satisfaction with the performance of its functions. Emerging political crises are the result of the ineffectiveness of state power, its inability to express the interests of certain communities, coordinate them among themselves, and put such coordination into practice. This is also facilitated by the discrepancy between correctly chosen interests and their political implementation. This situation is typical for developing societies - with changing stratification - as in modern Russia.

Authoritarian political system

In primitive society there was no state. Political(state) power emerged in the East from tribal power along with the collapse of tribal society, the emergence of private property, surplus product, and the intensification of the struggle of clans, peoples, and classes for survival. It was needed for some normalization of such a struggle.

In the East there arises despotic political system is a state that turns people into subjects and “cogs” (service people) of the state machine. Its geographical condition is a difficult climate, which does not allow individual families and communities to survive and requires government intervention for survival. The reason for the emergence of such a political system was the desire of man for administrative organization for the sake of survival in an unfavorable natural and social environment. The authoritarian system of society goes through stages in human history despotic at the agrarian stage of humanity and totalitarian(Soviet, fascist, Nazi, etc.) on industrial.

Original part of the despotic system is the despotic community, which includes subjects (slaves, serfs, proletarians), the political elite and its leader (tsar, emperor, general secretary, Fuhrer, Duce, etc.) with corresponding subjectivity. The original part here includes authoritarian religion (in agrarian societies) and totalitarian ideology (communist, Nazi, fascist; in industrial societies); This system is characterized, on the one hand, by diligence, humility, and patience, and on the other, by authority, cruelty and determination.

Basis The authoritarian system of society is the authoritarian (despotic) state power: the ruler, the political elite, officials, law, material resources, sanctions, etc., as well as numerous socio-political organizations, which in Soviet society were called the “drive belts” of the CPSU: pioneer, Komsomol, trade union and others. In a despotic state, the executive branch (Ministry of Internal Affairs, State Security, Army, etc.) dominates the legislative and judicial branches in terms of numbers and power. The main functions of such state power: maintaining order, ensuring the security of the country, organizing the economy, law-making, etc.

Authoritarian power controls all systems of society, also acting as a monopoly economic entity. It directs the development of the economy for its own purposes, at the expense of the demosocial system. The ambitions of a despotic leader and his elite, supported by pseudoscience and a “class approach” (as happened with “Marxism-Leninism” in the USSR), can make the economy incapacitated, deprive the social system of funds and lead society to collapse.

An authoritarian political system turns societies into extremely stable And durable, But incapable of self-development. They resemble structures made of monolithic reinforced concrete: the initial, base and auxiliary parts in them are connected by an iron frame filled with power concrete.

Change in political societies occurs slowly. Generations live in the same conditions, preserving stereotypes of consciousness and behavior: the traditions of past generations are the highest values. There are no “fathers and sons” problems.

The development of authoritarian political systems proceeds extensively and cyclically. When the political elite degrades, the state apparatus weakens, the support of the population ceases, etc., such political systems fall apart. Sometimes this happens as a result of a military clash with a stronger (smarter, armed, united) political system.

At the beginning of the 20th century, in some feudal-capitalist countries of catching up modernization, a totalitarian political system arose: Soviet in the USSR (under Stalin), fascist in Italy (under Mussolini), Nazi in Germany (under Hitler), the so-called “militarist” in Japan, Francoist in Spain (under Franco). It was a type of authoritarian political system and had a tremendous influence on social processes in bourgeois countries.

Authoritarian political systems turn societies into unique individuals, and individuals into a “cog” in the state machine. It is no coincidence that Russians call Russia “mother”, Holy Russia, Motherland, “slave” (M. Voloshin). Western countries have never been characterized by such metaphors: there the individual was and remains a person. Before the post-industrial era, such a collective personality-country could survive in the conditions of international competition. Will Russia manage to remain a collectivist personality in the post-industrial world?

Liberal political system

The liberal-political (democratic) system of society arose in ancient (agrarian) society (Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome) much later than the authoritarian-political one, and then developed in industrial-bourgeois society in the West (in Europe) as a result of the revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries . The emerging liberal political system expressed the interests of the bourgeoisie and was leading in capitalist countries until the “October Revolution” in Russia and the capitalist crisis of the 30s of the 20th century. It was precisely this system that K. Marx and F. Engels criticized in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848).

The original part of the liberal political system is formed by free community members and citizens united in a civil community (a set of non-state, voluntary organizations of citizens to protect their interests from their state): free political parties, socio-political organizations (church, trade unions, etc.), MASS MEDIA. Their subjectivity is liberal-religious (in ancient society) and liberal (in industrial society) in nature.

Basic part of the liberal political system forms democratic government in the form of a parliamentary or presidential republic. In it, the political leader and ruling elite are elected by the citizens through direct or graded elections for a specified term. There is a division of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial (the latter is based on private law). The most important executive bodies are law enforcement (police and prosecutor's office). The most important issues are decided by plebiscites (referendums) of citizens. (The executive branch is also characterized by a desire for arbitrariness beyond the bounds of private law.) In Western society, state functions acquire a coordinating character when private owners enter into market relations among themselves.

The effective part A liberal political system is formed by: 1) political, economic and demosocial stability; 2) respect for human and civil rights; 3) the possibility of self-development in a competitive environment and uncertainty about the future; 4) protection from external threats; 5) ensuring external political and economic expansion.

There are various reasons given for the origin of such a state. Marxists argue that it was caused by the emergence of private owners, the class struggle of the poor against the rich, and the desire of the rich to protect their property with the help of power. Fukuyama believes that democracy is never chosen by economic reasons. The first democratic revolutions (American and French) occurred when the industrial revolution was underway only in England. The choice in favor of human rights was not due to industrialization, the emergence of the bourgeoisie, etc. “For Hegel, the prime mover of human history is not modern science or the ever-expanding horizon of desires<...>but the motive is not entirely economic—the struggle for recognition.”

The structure of the liberal state varies depending on the type of society. For American liberals (and conservatives), the state includes a set of social institutions that ensure public order and defense: police, courts, prisons, army, etc. It acts as a “night watchman” and cannot limit the private individualism of citizens.

For European For social democrats, the state includes, in addition to the above, also schools, universities, hospitals, utility systems, science, etc., which in the USA are privately run. State infrastructure tries to ensure equality of citizens in consumption and the possibility of their participation in public life. The principle of participation follows from the principle of social solidarity, which became the banner of the French bourgeois revolution. This principle is absent in modern America, where the principle of private initiative and individualism prevails.

All mechanisms and procedures decision making on the most important issues of functioning and improving the political system are regulated by regulations. Separate branches and levels of government are mutually controlled by the law. In terms of the speed of decision-making, a democratic mechanism is slower than a despotic one, but in terms of final effectiveness it is higher than it. It allows reform to be carried out consistently, progressively and dynamically, avoiding, as far as possible, completely natural mistakes.

The liberal political system has long expressed predominantly the interests of the economically dominant classes. In their interests, a constitution was adopted, a parliament was formed, and suffrage was introduced. The rest of the population was excluded from political life due to the nature of their work, education, and traditions. As a result of the increase in the petty and middle bourgeoisie, the number of workers and intellectuals, and the growing consciousness of the population, political life underwent social democratization.

Social democratic political system

At the end of the 19th century, universal suffrage was introduced in capitalist countries, and numerous political parties of different social classes emerged: the bourgeoisie, workers, farmers, and office workers. Adapting to the interests of the non-bourgeois classes, the aggravation of inter-imperialist contradictions, and the catastrophic consequences of the First World War, the liberal political system was transformed into a social democratic one, which is in a sense a mixed, authoritarian-liberal political system.

The social democratic system arose as a result of borrowing some totalitarian institutions of the Soviet, Nazi and fascist systems and socially “grafting” them into the liberal political systems of capitalist countries in the middle of the 20th century: the USA (under Roosevelt), Sweden, Norway and others. Planning, state economics, state regulation of the market, and expansion of social and political rights of the lower classes are “inculcated.” These processes began after the First World War, but acquired significant proportions after the Second World War, the destruction of totalitarian political regimes in Germany, Japan and Italy.

The original part of the social democratic political system is formed by a social democratic community, including middle class(petty and middle bourgeoisie, bourgeois intellectuals, employees and workers), economically secure, possessing civil rights, sufficiently educated, engaged in entrepreneurial work, consisting of law-abiding citizens, monitoring compliance with the laws adopted in society, defending their rights against their state through civil society . He is characterized by a social democratic worldview, mentality and motivation.

Basic the sphere of social democratic power is formed by a democratic, legal, social state in the form of a parliamentary or presidential republic. The political leader and ruling elite are elected through direct or graded elections for a specified term. Important issues are resolved through referendums. The functions of legislative, executive, judicial, as well as central, regional and local authorities are delimited. Such a state becomes social, begins to take care of the unemployed, the elderly, large families and other poor people through the redistribution of income of rich and wealthy people. Will Hutton writes about such a state: “Europeans are expanding the boundaries of the state to include hospitals, schools, universities, public utilities and even scientific knowledge. The infrastructure created by the state ensures the equality of all members of society and the opportunity for each of them to participate in its life.”

Effective part of the social democratic system of society is formed by: 1) political, economic, demosocial stability; 2) respect for human and civil rights; 3) the opportunity for self-development in a competitive environment; 4) protection from external threats; 5) ensuring external political and economic expansion; 6) moderate social equality and social security.

By efficiency The social democratic political system is slower in making decisions than the liberal one, and even more so the authoritarian one. This is due to the coordination of the interests of different social classes - operational and strategic. Making important decisions in the civil political system is accompanied by a national and intra-party discussion, which allows one to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of the decision being made for the country and its classes. The social democratic political system allows for political, economic and other reforms to be carried out consistently, progressively and dynamically, avoiding completely natural mistakes.

In his famous article “The End of History” (1989) and the book “The End of History and the Last Man” (1990), F. Fukuyama puts forward the position that social democratic (“liberal democratic” in his terminology) the political system means the end of history, that is, it represents the most complete and effective expression of the political needs of people. “This statement,” he writes, “does not mean that stable democracies such as the United States, France or Switzerland are free from injustice or serious social problems. But these problems are associated with the incomplete implementation of the twin principles: freedom And equality, - and not with defects in the principles themselves. Although some modern countries may fail in their attempt to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others may revert to other, more primitive forms of government, such as theocracy or military dictatorship, ideal liberal democracy cannot be improved.”

The American organization Freedom House, which specializes in assessing the character of political regimes, counted 42 democracies in the world in 1972. Currently, 120 states are included in this category. The United Nations Development Program classifies 80 countries in the world as truly democratic. It is noted that out of 81 countries in the world that proclaimed the construction of democratic states, only 47 achieved this goal. In particular, countries with “consolidated democracy” are now considered to be Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, and countries in transition to consolidated democracy include Russia, Slovakia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Macedonia, Croatia , Albania, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. The countries of “consolidated autocracy” are Belarus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. You may not agree with this assessment, but you should pay attention to the fact that democratization is proceeding differently in different countries.

1. Geopolitical eras in the development of the international political system (IPS)

2. Classification of states of modern IPU

3. International organizations - subjects of the IPU

Literature:

· Alaev E. Countries, peoples and states // Federalism. 1997.No. 2.

· The whole world. Encyclopedic reference book. - M., 1999.

· A political map of the World. - M., 2001.

· Economic, social and political geography of the world. Regions and countries. Textbook / ed. S.B. Lavrova. - M., 2002.

International political system- is a set of independent political subjects that interact within the framework of certain rules. Sometimes this concept is used to mean Global community, And even the International Society.

The central figures of the International Political System are STATES, which is why Emanuel Kant compared it with " Society of States" which operates on the basis of international law.

And this is quite natural, since a sovereign national state is the main bearer of power not only within a single country, but also in the international arena. It is the state that has the real power to act as a subject of the international community, to conclude treaties or agreements, to declare war or make peace.

This system is quite complex and dynamic, even considering the number of its components. In 1500, there were 500 states in Europe alone. In 1800 there were 137 independent states in the world, in 1900 there were 57 states. Nowadays there are more than 200 states.

The basic principles of modern world politics were laid Westphalian system interstate relations in 1648 after the end of the Thirty Years' War. This geopolitical era is characterized by the formation of national states with a rigid, centralized, predominantly monarchical form of government, and the European interstate system turned into a global one. The main centers of power were Spain, Portugal, and Holland.

This world order existed for almost 150 years before the Great French Revolution and the famous Napoleonic Wars, which destroyed the Westphalian system. The next geopolitical era, consolidated by the Congress of Vienna, heads of state who defeated Napoleon is called Viennese era.

The Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires became the world centers of power, and England, France, Germany and Turkey gradually gained strength through the robbery of the colonies. Until the middle of the 19th century, Russia dominated the Eurasian continent. European countries, fearing Russian hegemony in the event of victory over Turkey and complete control over the Black, Baltic and Caspian Seas, unanimously opposed it in the Crimean War (1853-1856).

After the defeat of Russia, the Vienna System underwent changes, but continued to function. Russia, having lost its hegemony, was forced to balance on the geopolitical field between France, England and Germany. As a result of complex diplomatic campaigns, two powerful blocs emerged in Europe: the Entente (Russia, England, France) and the Triple Alliance represented by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The purpose of the blocks, especially the second one, is to redistribute spheres of influence.

The result of the confrontation was the First World War, in which the Triple Alliance was defeated. As a result, the geopolitical balance of power has radically changed. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Turkish empires collapsed. On the ruins of these empires, several small states arose that came under the influence of the victors. The peace treaty following World War I was concluded at Versailles, so the new geopolitical era was called Versailles.

Its geopolitical leaders were Great Britain and the USA. However, this system was blown up as a result of World War 2, the final act of which was the Potsdam Peace Conference, at which a new balance of power was fixed. The world after Potsdam became bipolar, led by two powerful blocs, the Warsaw Pact and NATO, led by the Soviet Union and the United States.

The confrontation between the two systems determined the content Potsdam geopolitical era.

A new balance of power arose after the collapse of the USSR. The Treaty on the cessation of its functioning was signed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha in December 1991, therefore some geopoliticians call the emerging world order Belovezhskaya geopolitical era. The West, led by the United States, including the countries of the so-called golden billion, seeks to consolidate its victory and prevent Russia from rising, biting off a piece of geopolitical space from it.