# The Evolution of Key Russian Political Discourse: from Western Democracy to the Quality of Democracy

Виктор Сергеевич Мартьянов

Martianov V. The decline of public politics in Russia: from public politics to political administration: the depoliticization of the regions // Russian Politics and Law. 2007. V. 45. N 5. p. 67-82. Аннотация: The paradigm of "transitive modernization" as the base foundation of the political transitology looks like a tautological position about universal values of Modern and Enlightenment, which have Western origin. On the political level it has national and ideological sides. The last level of political here is the Nation-state. Political institutes and values of Modern in West are treated as universal for nations all over the world. Those nations have to develop themselves according to these values by the "natural way". The declinations from the Western Liberal Democracy are understood as temporal pathologies in the political development of the society, which can"t cancel the universality of political institutes of democracy, progress, individual and freedom because every society must be cured of any political pathology.

The paradigm of "transitive modernization" as the base foundation of the political transitology looks like a tautological position about universal values of Modern and Enlightenment, which have Western origin. On the political level it has national and ideological sides. The last level of political here is the Nation-state. Political institutes and values of Modern in West are treated as universal for nations all over the world. Those nations have to develop themselves according to these values by the "natural way". The declinations from the Western Liberal Democracy are understood as temporal pathologies in the political development of the society, which can"t cancel the universality of political institutes of democracy, progress, individual and freedom because every society must be cured of any political pathology.


The transitology represents the paradigm of the modernization in the most radical way, because transitology comes from the universal axiom, claiming that every non-democratic society inevitably transforms into the democratic society. The plot of such transition looks like very archetypical stories about "coming golden age" and "the end of the history" as achievements of all-world "civil" liberal-democratic political status. In this case the valuable ideal in politics is identified with a very particular type of the political structure of Western countries. The theorists concentrate their attention on the gap between need and reality. The theory of the politics is conscious of the situation and the need in the transition only, that"s why it"s no need in the reflection of normativity in politics here, because the values and norms were have been prescribed before. We may speak only about the technical aspects, conditions, methods and periods of time for going to the "golden century" and further:"The models of transitology, based on this scheme, are following: the models of "cycles", "second attempt", "aborted democracy", "straight transition", "decolonization" and so on . Using such dualistic schemes as state - civil society, democracy - totalitarism, plan - market, traditional - modern, transitology obtains the Manichean character from the moral point of view. These dualistic ties, have been mentioned above, have begun to illustrate struggle between Good and Evil, but they don"t illustrate "the ideal types" by M. Weber, in spite of having been them before. That"s why, authors of works, devoted to transitology, claiming about their own ideological, cultural and political neutrality, describe the political reality in terms, mentioned above, and give to this reality one or other special moral properties.


The main idea here is in the fact that the radicalized moral estimations are inside the categories of political science and they don"t need in the external appellations. The moral here is "objectivated" and "scientificated", being associated with the universality, usefulness, effectivity and "utilitarity". That"s why it"s no need in reflection about valuable axioms of transitological theories inside these theories. There is no sense in it. Using the similar with this theoretical material, the researcher knows very predictable answers to all possible questions, even before their arising. Thus, transitology motivates their followers to transformation from scientists to ideologists. Because of that, analyzing "strange" and "pathological" political practice, the discourse of transitology more likely obtains messianic features, the features of intolerance, didactism and "progressism".


Transitology is a tautological structure in the political gnoseology. It shapes as a cultural pseudoneitral political theory, based on the fundamental idea of the universal political norm (culturally identified with West) and is potentially spread on each political regime, civilization, or universum.


The main axiom of transitology for Russia includes the necessity of application of the universal political theory to Russia as the particular subject, which hasn"t got any "peculiarities" like, for example, own logical way of the development and social and cultural coming-to-be. That"s why "Russian political science", coming from the logic of differences, breaks, "peculiarities", "own way", is impossible here. The transitological theory is under influence of the Western Enlightenment, Panlogism and Eurocentrism. It is directed towards borrowing of the Western normative values, political institutes and theories, which seems to be something like realization of the transcendental political ideal on the Earth. In the history of Russia transitology is closely connected with the dogmatic Westernism from Peter the Great and Chaadaev to soviet dissidents, romantic liberals and right radicals from such marginal political parties as "The Democratic Choice of Russia", "The Right Union", "The Liberal Russia" and so on.


The main terms of the transitological political vocabulary are civil society, freedom, democracy, competition, market, human rights, efficiency and so on. The word "reform" had become a generalizing concept, realizing in the political practice all terms, mentioned above. "Reform" was the basic legitimating concept in the transitological discourse of Russian political science in the 90-th. The political practice of "reform" was based on the super value of negative "liberation from the past", which was strengthened by elite"s "political inferiority complex" as the result of defeat in the "cold war".


The term of civil society had become the second legitimating concept of transitology. Civil society as a "society of 2\3", "consumer society" or the "information society" had to change the traditional describing of society like society of classes. We can see here a new logical way of describing society, which is connected with substitution for some sociological and political descriptive categories. For example: cultural and anthropological terms like nation, individual, language, religion, ethnos, culture, spirit, identity were substituted for such categories as classes, state, ideologies, parties, fairness, attracting its attention to the real conflicts during political interactions inside society, because they are means of solving of the political conflicts by "consensus", "pluralism", working out common interests, bringing up tolerance, introduction of civil society institutes and so on. Thus, actually, the human alienation from his real interests to all-compromising national idea was explained. This explanation strangely coincides with the political interests of elite as a small part of the society, governing and controlling the state, which is the most important political institute.


However, the real appearance of "national ideology", withdrawing all class, social, economic and other contradictions, would have meant the end of the meaning of politics as class and ideology struggle and, after that, the beginning of "communist paradise" as a society without any contradictions. In the social theories like conception of civil society and middle class, directed to society unification were some manipulating traps. They consisted of the point, that the real ideologies cannot stay above parties and objectively represent the interests of all society, people and nation. Actually transitology made new Russian elite legitimated not by "national ideology", which is impossible because of its definition, but by the transition itself from pathological as a critique of soviet totalitarian bygone to ideal as an apology of "civilized society" through the concept of "reform". But this transition into "earthly paradise" in the newest Russian political history hadn"t been realized or had been realized defectively. As a result in the political discourse of Russia arose a very convenient and popular scheme of "Russian democracy with sentences" into the framework of the norm-exception, dogma-heresy dualistic code. This theoretic scheme represented the Russian reformers" discourse, explaining the reasons why the reforms didn"t reach the planning goals. However, the reforms as the legitimating foundation of the political regime can not go on for ever without positive results, which have been promised before. That"s why in the Russian political discourse nowadays aren"t persuasive the descriptions of Russian political regime, trying to include home reality into the "universal" theory of modernization through the "back door" of temporal "pathological" Russian declination from "eastern norm" during the eternal coming back into "civilization".


A lot of neologisms are being invented for description of the political regime. For example: "proto- and quasi democracy", "prolonged transit", "outward democracy" (D. Furman), "ersatz-democratic regime" or "authoritarian democracy" (A. Migranyan, V. Rukavishnikov), "half-democracy" (L. Gordon), "Russian hybrid" (L. Shevtsova) . "Postsoviet democracy is characterized as "defective, "blocked", "non-liberal" and so on" . From the economical point of view this "discourse of pathological declination" is supplementary illustrated by theories of "state-monopolistic", "feudal capitalism" and even of "industrial feudalism" . But in conclusion it ought to admit that in the point of cognition the "democracy with sentences" hasn"t explained anything because of falsity of its basic transitive paradigm.


On the other hand we"d like to note that namely sovetologists, once having made the most important contribution to creating of the transitology almost at the first time understood its ending and impasse. The Western sovetologists, Z. Brzezinsky, R. Pipes, H. Arendt, who represented the authoritative discourse of forming Russian political science, couldn"t neither predict, nor give a conceptual meaning to real transformations of postsoviet reality from transitological point of view. Sovetology didn"t analyze the real political processes in Russia, but came from prescriptive and privileged Western norms and values, which were spread on the "barbarian" objects with another culture like former USSR and modern Russia. That"s why it isn"t difficult to understand that the topical ideological trend in sovetology is connected namely with "the refusing from "reform" as a discredited word and with transition to effective phraseology, which is closely connected with "revival", "development", "state" and so on.


Into the transitology because of its prescriptive character it was possible only to talk about adequacy\non adequacy and correspondence\non correspondence of Russian policy with ideas (in platonic sense) of freedom, democracy, market and so on, existing in the particular theoretic subject"s consciousness as "ideal". This ideality is unreflective, it looks like symbol of belief like something "intuitively clear" and obvious for the subject of cognition. But, with it all discourse of modernization automatically refuses Russian political reality in getting of own "name" as getting of own order and unique character of development. Therefore, political reality becomes nameless and because of that unknown. That"s why "common for all people" and obvious political terms, which are used by theory of transit, turn into simulacres and ritual spells, impossible for adequate describing and solving of "real" theoretical, methodological and practical problems of Russian political reality.


Nonetheless, some authors like N. Smelser, P. Shtompka and others try to "save" discourse of modernization by using principally for "transition societies" like countries of Eastern Europe and CIN (SNG) the concept of "socio and cultural trauma" (pathology again!) and prescribing the overcoming of the trauma by "civil repair" and "multiculturalism" (terms by J. Alexander). But the need in movement to universal political "modernity" becomes more dubious also because of the fact that "transitological paradigm is only a shameful resurrection of modernization theory, which flourished in 1950-60-th and was intended for the "third word", arising at that period of time and died in 1970-th, having shown its intellectual emptiness and political irrelevance" . Moreover, the universality of transitological theory basing on classical values of Postmodern and Enlightenment becomes more and more problematic under post-Modern conditions and under conditions of clear "double standards" in political, economic and cultural "glocalization". Political globalization and crisis of nation-state destroy the previous universality of Enlightenment, which turns into universality of Western civilization type with clear historical borders. Clash with that historical bordering confirms the insuperability of global social, economical and cultural breaks and normative\ non-normative borders which in its turn, rejects the opportunity of "transit" from pathology to norm.


The ideological character of transitology didn"t give it an opportunity of adequate methodological interpretation of its own description. Values and traditions, conditioning the important differences of the non-western policies are rejected because of its less importance into the framework of fundamental Enlightenment regulations like objectivism, progressism, cultural homogeneity and universal rationality. This inadequacy becomes especially clear under conditions of Modern crisis. Moreover, "the fact that inevitable laws and historical trends are also somebody"s perspectives and strategies and its "rationality" depends on degree of winner"s power isn"t being reflected by theory of modernization and by modern transitology. That"s why immorality is the part of its common paradigm".


Transitology appeals to the type of Western "modernity", which looks like pseudo-neutral universal normative scheme, consisting of two theoretical signs, mutually conditioned by market economy and liberal democracy as "political freedom". But, analyzing fixedly, the scheme suggested above works adequately only in description of the Western social reality, which is not universal but unique for self-description and consequently for "inner using". The spreading of this scheme outside in the comparative context found disconnection even between this signs. For example, such countries as China, South Korea, "Asian tigers", Chili are phenomenon of non-democratic but market industrial monsters. Also there are phenomenon of democratic, but non-market countries. Ex-socialistic countries may be related to this category because of state and plane economics dominating in the economic sphere but with limitations of real democracy.


The false identification of capitalism with democratic ideas turned into the real crisis of transit to "democratic capitalism", which turned in the end into democracy for people but without people. Also turned into crisis concept of liberal democracy, which rejected the universality of identification of capitalism and democracy. According to this concept political democracy is possible to be only as a consequence and as a "superstructure" above market economy. But the modern Russia"s paradoxical example demonstrated that the economic liberalization led to its "de-capitalization" and to cutting of production, to grows of social and economic inequality and at the same time with them initiated grows of elitism (as de-democratization) of politics and political elite"s "closing". In other words, liberalism is antidemocratic, but democracy is egalitarian, that"s why their combination isn"t natural and was conditioned only by external reasons, like, for instance, "cold war" and by the presence of USSR, forcing the Western liberalism to have a democratic face.


Thus, transitology confines itself into ideological trap, trying to fit not authentic for Western political theory reality to normative schemes having idealized into western social and cultural reality. But in this case the prescription of recipe comes earlier than the anamnesis of illness, which, in addition, is often simulated by doctor himself. The ideological default and sudden turning up of transitological publications with theoretical advices for Russia in the political magazines and crisis of privileged euro central discourse in the comparative political science are caused by absence of researches" methodological reflection about historical, civilizational and climatic determinants, which are hidden or ignored. As the result, these determinants become reveal a posteriori, after non critical using of normative analysis schemes. "Strained concepts", which were oriented on the authority of Western privileged political discourse, had just "broken". What"s more it was found that: "it"s shouldn"t eager to find the universal cognitive mean for helping in liquidation of iceberg as a thing for ages. "Titanic" won"t turn to an icebreaker, the thing, which is good in the one case, isn"t always good in another ".


Thus, in Russian political science from the end of 80-th till the middle of 90-th transitology and corresponding to it theory of pursuing modernization dominated. According to both of these theories modernization is the way of progress, which had been already come by West and will have been done by the other countries. This theory served to the most of Russian political studies as a paradigm. Real political phenomenons here were interpreted from the position of the universal, ideal and final states of politics, which was realized as a Western Modern.


The fact of non-reduction of Russia to the ideal was proved by experience during the libertarian reforms and political experiment. First of all it was understood like pathology, which has to be reduced to norm requirement by "the way of shock". But as M. Foocko wrote, that the norm privilege forms at the expense of not norm, wit forms at the expense of madness, law forms through the definition of crime and so on. That"s why, the attempt of Western Modern"s global realization showed it"s bordering at the expense of "Another" political subject. This attempt led to the global crisis of Modern, which is interpreted as condition of post-modernization, de-modernization, globalization, virtualization (as converting into another reality) and so on. It was found that Western Modern needs for self-reproduction in cultural and political "barbarian" for its own being as a norm and ideal by comparison with this "barbarian". The USSR was such "political barbarian" for transitologists and sovetologists. Nowadays crisis of the political institutes of Modern, manifesting itself in disintegration of social groups, in de-ideologization and in reduction of mass parties and trade-unions, showed the ideological vulnerability and historical and cultural exhaustion of the universal transitological recipes for world in general and for Russia in particular. The transition from Modern to Post-Modern within the framework of the political science initiated the pragmatic turn from mono- to multiparadigmality of the political knowledge. The relativisation of the political science manifested itself in the fact that every political theory got the right for existence, but none of them is able to make general its own truth.


In our opinion in Russian political science there are two promising paradigms such as the paradigms of civilization and globalization. They are un opposition to transitology, which lost its domination in Russian political science. The paradigm of civilization as the main subject of the historical political process first of all is a critique of modernization theory as the universal for all people development way, which is made in the West. It proceeds from the point that the values of Enlightenment and Modern may be really universal, but can"t be universal one or other historical, state and national means of its realization. In the framework of civilisational (critical) paradigm goes an explanation of a thesis that the universal for all people political values and institutes are the conditions and attributes of all people"s culture, which really hasn"t ever existed. That"s why talking on its behalf means the pretending to the global power. The humanity is universal only by its genesis, as the biological kind, but from the political point of view there are only civilization communities, which are conflicting, historically variable and often issued from the oppositional social and cultural axioms. Hence, both in the politics and in the system of the political knowledge it"s impossible to get general and objective truth, because all political subjects are civilisationally engaged. Only prescriptive norms, connected with "what and how political subjects must do" may pretend to be universal. The civilizational paradigm comes from the point that in reality the universality of political values isn"t possible for the humanity in general. It works only in the framework of civilization universums because they give birth to this universality. We"d like to notice that such magic political spells as freedom, democracy, human rights, private property, competition, individualism, civil society, so "self-obvious for western civilization, out of the Enlightenment"s aureole lose its "obvious" semantic load together with abilities to ritual and symbolic explanation of politics and to legitimating of political practices, which are also based on this rhetoric. The general conclusion consists of the point that the absolutisation of the valuable and symbolic foundation of any civilization is analogous to the next building of Babylon"s tower, which has to be unfortunate.


The intensification of globalization and localization processes has vividly demonstrated the hermetism and narrowness of civilization values, which fastening in the dogmatic variant and out of the authentic civilization borders leads to the serious conflicts and to the rejection from the objects of "civilizing". The civilizational paradigm points out sources of paradox, arising during realization of one and the same ideas in different civilizations often with absolutely different results. In the framework of classical modernization theory it was interpreted as pathology or "performers" mistake" or "wrong patient". In civilizational approach the political measurement rises from national to civilizational. De-universality of the modernization theory is realized through the critique of state-national projects of Modern and Enlightenment, which imposition of its own historically "unique" ways of the beginning, development and establishing of their values as normative to all other civilizations examples for imitation.


The civilizational paradigm forms on the base of axiomatic position about insuperability of civilizational breaks and differences. According to Russia the civilizational approach looks like cognitive theory of politics, understanding Russia as the especial subject, as independent and unique reality. The a-priori axiom consists of the point that every political theory is culturally determined, but its subject is unique and non-typical. Political norm of any particular civilization can"t be taken from another civilization space of ideas. A real value may spring up only into authentic civilization space, interpreting present, past and future of that civilization. The peculiarities of Russia"s authentic political space in the framework of civilizational paradigm are interpreted as:


1) determined by imperial status of Russia

2) by Russian status of the unique civilization

3) by Russia"s reduction neither Europe, nor Asia or both

4) by ideocratic principle of Russia state building.


Now the civilizational paradigm in Russia is being working the most clear in the antiglobalist way by traditional and Euroasiatic political theories, which not so much criticize western Enlightenment project as the perspective of global post-Modern realization. This global post-modern turns into simulation and into elimination of Modern, becoming Contra-Modern. Civilizational paradigm in Russian political science correlates with "revanshist point of view" and with critique of the "westernist" discourse, dominating during post-perestroika. The main sense of critic of non-authentic (other - civilizational) transitological way of description reduces to its disability to assume that the wrong results of realization of the "right theories" like, for example, theories of "libertarian reforms" or "civil society" isn"t explained by imperfection of the reality, but, on the contrary, by irrelevancy of using of the theoretical paradigm. That"s why an explanation of reform crisis, democrats" and "rights" failure, the formal character of democracy, market, civil society through the inherent to Russia pathological characteristics like servility of Russian soul, community totalitarism, the undeveloped law consciousness, the need in the "strong power", Russian laziness, Russian climate from the one side is the intellectual form of masochism, from the other side it is attempt of justification of the transitological theory, which stumbled across the unique features of Russian civilizational reality.


Finally, the axiom of globalization paradigm consists of the fact that social reality can"t be any more adequately reflected by the language of "great ideologies and utopias". The paradigm of globalization, being closely connected with postmodern style if mind, intentionally or not legitimates the cultural and political situation of global neoliberalism. The differences of globalizational paradigm from the critical theory of civilization are in the fact that the theory of globalization directed against to nation-state as a form of realization of the universal valuable Enlightenment"s order. It is a link between gradually dispersing political levels of global and local. The logical consequences from that are rejection of national and state political specific and neutralization of nation-state as the main participant of the political process. Because of that goes structural disorder of all political system, formed under condition of Modern. Globalization linked to terms: person-nation-humanity, correlating to other link as citizen-state-globality (transnationalism), breaks the concept of nation-state as the middle level of the political organization, which formed the universalism on Enlightenment and Modern. As the result it turns into delegitimation of the Enlightenment historical episteme through the different conceptions of "the end of history", post-structuralism, deconstruction and linguistic games.


Moreover, globalization revealed that so successful and natural for West amalgamation of nation and state in the world"s context proved to be not natural and universal. The historical character of this identity makes problematic the future destiny of nation-state as dominating political form of the society and as fundamental subject of international politics. The fact, striking our attention is in the following that the antiglobalists"\ globalists" truth about positive and negative globalization effects depends on the subject (the first, second, third world; the centre; the half-periphery, the periphery) on whom expenses and profits of globalization are illustrated.


The main conclusion of the article consists of the position that in Russian political science dominate some paradigms, which are easy to get from the frame of the political texts.


1. The absolute value for structure of the transitological paradigm is the value of transit from totalitarism to democracy, which is "civilized society" by "reformation". This paradigm has obvious "progressistic" implied sense and "golden age" here hasn"t got any utopian character. On the contrary it"s absolutely real and topologically materialized as the normative political reality of the West in spite of making it subtle. In transitological paradigm the researcher"s reflection is reduced to minimal and investigations have principally empirical and practical character consisting of the following points:


a) transferring and application of the universal theory to the present socio-cultural reality;

b) selection of facts, in which the result of application of the theory "has" to confirm its universal importance.


When in Russian political science the theory of "sciential" communism was changed by the western type of the political science it looked like changing of cognitive paradigm. But it was only the first impression. Actually took place the replacement the Marxian theory of economical formation and transition to communism by its antagonist as the theory of modernization and transition to democracy and capitalism. In this case many researches refused from using of the class approach and also from idealization of working class. Now both of these approaches are ideologically influenced and practically irrelevant, reflecting of classical "great struggle of two ideologies", which isn"t actual in post-Modern conditions. One of the main reasons of crisis of democratic transitological theory became the circumstance that in Russian political discourse the term of democracy developed its content through the opposition of the past, by the concept of democracy, being understood as antipode of socialism as anticommunism. As the result, after a few moments of triumph, democracy had remained only like negative theoretical concept, which still hasn"t come in the concordance with Russian political reality. It wasn"t really possible, because the democracy came to Russia as the Utopian project, which because of its definition can"t be completely realized. The form of this coming was identical with the historical form of communism, looking like realization of Utopia. But realization of the populist Utopia collapsed. That"s why isn"t surprising, that having developed from Utopia to power elite"s ideology, democracy had just got new antagonists such as nostalgic utopian ideas of Soviet project and some critical theories. All of them indicated flaws in democratic ideas and institutes in Russia nowadays. The turning point of the post-soviet political theory was in 1998. This year against the background of economical default the political discourse of the democracy as anticommunism, fully represented by transitology, was absolutely defeated and changed its position in the political science from dominating to marginal state. As the result, such words as democrat, liberal, reformer turned in the modern Russia into disparaging epithets.


However, this disappointment doesn"t imply crisis of the democratic idea, which gradually gets popularity as a new conception of "quality of democracy". The theory of "quality of democracy" represents by itself transition from normative "ideal types", which were used as means for description of the political regimes to post-ideological quantitative measuring of democracy. By exactly the same "ideal types" were described both totalitarism and democracy on the one hand and socialism and capitalism on the other hand. Instead of way from one virtual (not real) political type to another, suggested by transitology, in the new method is realized the quantitative measuring of democracy signs inside of the political regime, which turns after that into its "total quality". But by using of such approach democracy automatically becomes attached to practically every society. After that the logical inversion takes place. Democracy instead of being as one of the kinds of political regime (according to Platon and Aristotle) becomes hardly the only possible political regime, giving birth to good or bad, "qualitative" or "rotten" kind of democracy. As the result, "globalized democracy" turns into concept of democracy, related to post-modern style.


2. The paradigm of civilization has got a "revanshist character" and closely connected with critique of transitology. Its utopian project proceeds from something that "might have been", which means apologetic of its "own way". As "own way" may be represented versions of Alternative Modern, which was USSR, of Russia as autarky, of geopolitical building of Euro-Asian civilization, of the Orthodox civilization or Russian Super-Ethnos, which is historical "destiny of Russia". The negative side of civilization theory is in its simple inversion of binary code of transitological theories, trying to convert negative sides into positive by standing up for unique, authentic principles of Russian "Traditional modern" against "Liberal Modern" of the West.


3. Finally, the valuable axiom of the globalization paradigm is connected with post-Modern condition, in which framework the usual modernistic categories of description of politics are principally changing. Politics is described as a controlled and constructed process, which efficiency is connected with post-industrialization, globalization, informatization, transnationalization, virtualization and with political strategies, determined by electronic mass-media, Internet and so on. The last two of them form the kind of electronic public space, which, at the same time simulates the real political being and anticipates the political reality. The paradigm of globalization supposes two possible variants of the developmental course of events. According to the first variant the Western Modern will be able to get rid of its non-transitive and unique, specially Western features on behalf on its own, , but potentially universal properties, would have transformed after that into something like "plurality of modernities". According to the second variant, Modern in the global way would have been supplanted by after-Modern political project, which exactly wouldn"t have been connected with postmodernism, because postmodernism hasn"t got a "positive conceptuality" as ability to perception and integration of "Another", to creation of the "total" (universal). According to opinion of authors, working in this paradigm, the Western triumph is connected namely with changing of the game rules and political confrontation, having done by the West. The discussion between Socialist and Western camps on the language in the sphere of Modern and Enlightenment, was limited to the framework of this projects and later was converted by the West into discussion between Modern and post-modern. That meant legitimating by West the game without any rules. At the same time its antagonist remained to be true to old rules, values and goals in its "alternative variant". That served as a reason of its geostrategical defeat in the "cold war".


4. According to author of this article opinion, the condition of ideological independence of Russian political science, but not "political science about Russia", is in the existing of the "theoretic subject", which is conscious of its connection with the important political subject inside the Russian political universum. And the a-priori logical premises, forming the foundation of the political norms, theories, ideologies may be found only within the limits of Russian authentic space. Otherwise, Russia"s fate is in the being as "intellectual periphery", where, because of that, the authoritative political science schools, spreading its own original ideas in the world, cannot be formed. In our opinion the effective ideas may be taken only from its own civilizational history, traditions and practices. It has to be important, valuable, effective namely in Russia, but not in somewhere else. Only after that this ideas may be suggested to the world. If some political ethic, practice, or cultural type is effective, for instance, on the West, it won"t lead to its efficiency out of the West. That"s also true for Russia. The practices spring from the history, ontology, culture, collective action forms, symbols, rituals, habits, stereotypes of thought. Political values, goals and practices have the subjective character. Reflection of them supposes coming to the level of the political philosophy, autonomous from the applied political analyzing.


Ideas become objective during its realizing in the political institutes. But "making of the values objective" by its identification with political institutes isn"t real. Ideas are autonomous from reality. Its identification with social reality leads to exhausting of idea. Ideas originate the institutes, but the institutes can"t automatically generate the consciousness, initiated them. In other words, transitological way of mechanical introduction of democratic political institutes such as freedom of speech, division of power, elections, market and others doesn"t automatically lead to setting up the real liberal democracy. The problem is in the fact that the democratic political institutes by itself don"t lead to producing of appropriate to them type of values. Both ideas and institutes are conditioned by social, political and historical space of its origin. That"s why theoretical and mechanical imitation of Western institutes, suggested by transitology, without preliminary approval of the ideas, legitimating them, by the particular society, turns into fatal political tragedies of the whole nations and civilizations.


References


Gutorov V.A. Sovremennaya rossiskaya ideologia kak sistema I politicheskaya real"nost". Methodologicheskiye aspekty // POLIS, 2001, N 3, p.73.


Blyaher L.E. Vlasnye igry v krisisnom sotsiyme: preobrazovanie rossijskoi institutsional"noi structury // POLIS, 2003, N1, p. 63.


Bychkova O.V. Postsovetskoe rynochnoe reformirovanie: politeconomicheskie konseptsii // POLIS, 2001, N6, p. 164.


Prozorov B.L. O sud"bah sovetologii // Vestnik MGU, seriya 12 "Politicheskie nauki". 2001, N 6, p.26.


Kapustin B.G. Konets "transitologii"? O teoreticheskom osmyslenii pervogo postcommunisticheskogo desyatiletya // POLIS, 2001, N 2.


First democracies such as Rome republic and ancient policies were genetically non-market and slave-owning political formations. This example may be treated as radical.


Proceeding from "pyramid of human needs", it is easy to notice the correlation of liberal democracy concept with absolutization of not the most immediate, synthetic needs like human rights, election, political freedom and so on.


Liberal democracy, obviously, in the most of all is a result of high prosperity among overwhelming majority of citizen, whose basic human needs, connected with right of life, of food, of habitation, to medical treatment, correlated with patrimonialism and state, are absolutely satisfied. This correlation explains the supplanting of struggle liberal rhetoric like private initiative, politic and economic rights, kinds of freedom, competition to patrimonial rhetoric of human defending: strong state, regulation of market, income re-distribution, social guaranties and so on, taking place in Russian political discourse for the last few years.


Guelman V.Y. "Stolknoveniye s aisbergom": formirovanie conceptov v izuchenii rossiiskoi politiki // POLIS, 2001, N 6, pp. 12-13.