THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTIVENESS OF THE YOUTH POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN THE MODERN RUSSIAN CONDITIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2304-3369-2022-6-22-34Keywords:
youth, constructive political participation, political participation motivation, civil society, political activismAbstract
The new global and local trends in socio-political development draw increasing attention to the discussion in the scientific community about the constructiveness of the young people’s political participation. The issue is of both theoretical and methodological – the “constructive political participation” concept is underinter- preted and practical nature – the arbitrary use of this term reduces the youth activity management efficiency and creates opportunities for its ideologization.
Based on the political participation concepts analysis, the authors identify constructiveness criteria and offer a classification of constructive participation signs, and based on empirical research, reveal the poten- tial for constructive political participation of the Ural young activists.
Instrumental, activity, culturological and socialization approaches lay the theoretical and methodologi- cal foundations for searching the criteria of the young people’s political participation constructiveness. The empirical analysis is based on informal interviews with young political activists of the Urals Federal District (aged 18–30) who participate in the activities of youth organizations and structures created with the assis- tance and support of various political parties and movements (22 interviews).
According to the obtained results, two main motivational dominants have been identified in the political participation of young people: 1) importance of a just society and changes which could contribute to this;
2) opportunities for self-realization, personal success in politics. An analysis of ideological and value grounds of participation revealed the underdeveloped political views among some young politicians, an inability to formulate the ideas, which their political activity is built around. Another problem identified is lack of civic structures through which young people could influence the decisions taken.
It is concluded that despite the rather high potential for the constructiveness of the political participation of Ural activists, there are currently certain risks for its implementation, among which the most dangerous on is the youth polarization against the background of its politicization, the division into the mainstream approved "from above" and those disagreeing who are discriminated.
References
1. Henn M., Weinstein M., Forrest S. (2005). Un- interested Youth? Young People’s Attitudes towards Party Politics in Britain, Political Studies, vol. 53,
pp. 556–578. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00544.x.
2. Пырма Р.В. Электоральная активность молодежи в США, Великобритании, Франции, Гер- мании и России //Полития: Анализ. Хроника. Прогноз. 2019. № 4 (95) С. 188–201. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2019-95-4-188-204. EDN: BIDSIT.
3. Гудков Л., Зоркая Н., Кочергина Е., Пи- пия К., Рысева А. «Поколение Z»: Молодежь времени путинского правления // Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. 2020. № 1-2 (130). С. 21–121. EDN: OYGMQT.
4. Гудков Л.Д., Никипорец Г.Ю., Паин Э.А. , Простаков С.А., Федянин С.Ю. Интернет и идеологические движения в России : Монография. М. : Новое литературное обозрение, 2016. 480 с. ISBN: 978-5-4448-0517-6. EDN: VWMANL.
5. Martin A. (2012). Political Participation among the Young in Australia: Testing Dalton's Good Cit- izen Thesis, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 211–226. DOI: 10.1080/10361146. 2012.677003.
6. Бутусова Н.В. Конструктивное политическое участие и повышение эффективности публичной власти в России // Вестник Поволжского института управления. 2018. № 5. С. 46–55. DOI: 10.22394/1682-2358-2018-5-46-55. EDN: YQNYHB.
7. Риэккинен М.А. Конституционно-право- вые основы конструктивного протеста : автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени доктора юридических наук / Риэккинен Мария Александровна. Тюмень. 2017. 22 с. EDN: ZQIECJ.
8. Отроков О.Ю. Специфика деятельности некоммерческих организаций России в направлении политической социализации молодежи // Власть. 2021. Т. 29. № 2. С. 212–217. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v29i2.8048. EDN: CLESFG.
9. Шумпетер Й. Капитализм, социализм и демократия / Пер. с англ. ; предисл. и общ. ред. В. С. Автономова. М. : Экономика, 1995. 540 с. ISВN: 5-282-01415-7.
10. Barber B. (1995). Participatory Democ- racy, Encyclopedia of Democracy, vol. 3. New York. Pp. 921–924.
11. Колесникова Д.В., Новоставский И.Н. Политическая социализация молодежи в Рос- сии // Социально-гуманитарный вестник : Всероссийский сборник научных трудов. Краснодар : Краснодарский центр научно-технической информации, 2018. С. 100–102. EDN: XSWOFV.
12. Almond G., Verba S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400874569.
13. Кирдина-Чэндлер С. Г. Инструментальный подход к анализу государства как методологический императив // Общественные науки и современность. 2020. № 4. С. 158–173. DOI: 10.31857/S086904990010763-1. EDN: OBGAJA.
14. Александров Ю.И., Кирдина С.Г. Типы ментальности и институциональные матрицы: мультидисциплинарный подход // Социологические исследования. 2012. № 8 (340). С. 3–13. EDN: PBZOHH.
15. Kirdina S.G. (2010). Prospects of Liberal- ization for S & T Policies in Russia: Institutional Analysis, Sociology of Science and Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 9–25. EDN: ONLNSZ.
16. Rozenbaum W. (1975). Political Culture. New York: Praeger.
17. Баранов Н.А., Исаев Б.А. Современная Российская политика. М. : Издательство ЮРАЙТ, 2022. 389 с. EDN: UEWANX.
18. Гуляихин В.Н. Архетипы политической культуры российских граждан // NB: Проблемы общества и политики. № 1. С. 153–170. EDN: RWWYLN.
19. Новоставский И.Н. Некоторые проблемы политической социализации студенческой молодежи // Кубанские исторические чтения : Материалы IX Международной научно-практической конференции. Краснодар : ФГБУ «Российское энергетическое агентство». 2018. С. 138–143. EDN: XTJYKD.
20. Norris P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Rein- venting Political Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 59. DOI: 10.1017/CBO978051 1610073.
REFERENCES
1. Henn M., Weinstein M., Forrest S. (2005). Un- interested Youth? Young People’s Attitudes towards Party Politics in Britain, Political Studies, vol. 53,
pp. 556–578. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00544.x.
2. Pyrma R.V. (2019). Electoral participation of youth in the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia (comparative study), Politeia, no. 4 (95), pp. 188–201. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2019-95- 4-188-204. EDN: BIDESIT.
3. Gudkov L., Zorkaya N., Kochergina E., Pi- piya K., Ryseva A. (2020). “Generation Z”. Young people of the Putin era, Bulletin of Public Opinion. Data. Analysis. Discussions, no. 1-2 (130), pp. 21–121. EDN: OYGMQT.
4. Gudkov L.D., Nikiporets G.Yu., Pain E.A., Prostakov S.A., Fedyanin S.Yu. (2016). Internet and ideological movements in Russia: Monograph. Mos- cow: New Literary Review. 480 p. ISBN: 978-5-448- 0517-6. EDN: VWMANL.
5. Martin A. (2012). Political Participation among the Young in Australia: Testing Dalton's Good Cit- izen Thesis, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 211–226. DOI: 10.1080/10361146. 2012.677003.
6. Butusova N.V. (2018). Constructive political participation and improving the efficiency of public authority in Russia, The Bulletin of the Volga Region Institute of Administration, no. 5, pp. 46–55. DOI: 10.22394/1682-2358-2018-5-46-55. EDN: YQNYHB.
7. Riekkinen M.A. (2017). Constitutional and legal foundations of constructive protest. Abstract of Ph. D. thesis. Tyumen. 22 p. EDN: ZQIECJ.
8. Otrokov O.Yu. (2021). The specifics of activ- ities of non-profit organizations in Russia in the direction of political socialization of youth, Power, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 212–217. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v29i2. 8048. EDN: CLESFG.
9. Schumpeter J. (1995). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Translated from English. Intr. and gen. ed. by V.S. Autonomov. Moscow: Economika. 540 p. ISBN: 5-282-01415-7.
10. Barber B. (1995). Participatory Democ- racy, Encyclopedia of Democracy, vol. 3. New York. Pp. 921–924.
11. Kolesnikova D.V., Novostavsky I.N. (2018). Political socializationofyouthin Russia, Socio-Human- ities Bulletin: All-Russian collection of scientific works. Krasnodar: Krasnodar Center for Scientific and Technical Information. Pp. 100–102. EDN: XSWOFV.
12. Almond G., Verba S. (1963). The Civic Cul- ture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Na- tions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/ 9781400874569.
13. Kirdina-Chandler S.G. (2020). Aninstrumen- tal approach to the analysis of the state as a method- ological imperative, Social Sciences and Contem- porary World, no. 4, pp. 158–173. DOI: 10.31857/ S086904990010763-1. Edn: OBGAJA.
14. Aleksandrov Yu.I., Kirdina S.G. (2012). Men- tality types and institutional matrices: multi-disci- plinary approach, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, no. 8 (340), pp. 3–13. EDN: PBZOHH.
15. Kirdina S.G. (2010). Prospects of Liberaliza- tion for S & T Policies in Russia: Institutional Analy- sis, Sociology of Science and Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 9–25. EDN: ONLNSZ.
16. Rozenbaum W. (1975). Political Culture. New York: Praeger.
17. Baranov N.A., Isaev B.A. (2022). Modern Rus- sian politics. Moscow: Publishing House YuRAIT. 389 p. EDN: UEWANX.
18. Gulyaikhin V.N. (2013). Archetypes of the po- litical culture of Russian citizens, NB: Problems of so- ciety andpolitics, no. 1, pp. 153–170. EDN: RWWYLN.
19. Novostavsky I.N. (2018). Some problems of political socialization of student youth, In: Proceed- ingsofthe IXInternational Scientificand Practical Con- ference “Kuban historical readings”. Krasnodar: FSBI “Russian Energy Agency”. Pp. 138–143. EDN: XTJYKD.
20. Norris P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Rein- venting Political Activism. New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. P. 59. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511610073.
