Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ
/ 10. Ðåãèîíàëüíûå ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû
Zhumasultanova
Galia Azirhanovna
Ñandidate of historical sciences
Karaganda State University named after E.A.Buketov,
Kazakhstan
From experience of comparative research process of political modernization
in Russia and Kazakhstan
Political
modernization as one of the type of political process attracts the increasing
attention as from the western, and domestic researchers today. It is connected
with that fact that the last decades are characterized by falling of
authoritarian, totalitarian regimes and attempt of the statement of democratic
institutes in many states of the world.
The famous
American researcher S. Huntington characterizes this process, as the third wave
of democratization which captured large group of the countries. Characterizing
this process as a world democratic revolution, he notices that by the beginning
of the 90th, "the democracy is considered as the only legitimate and
sustainable alternative to authoritarian regime of any type".
According to S.
Huntington, the beginning of the first wave is connected with the expansion of
democratic principles in the USA in XIX century, it proceeded before the end of
the World War I (1828-1926). Rise of democratization is followed, as a rule, by
its kickback. The first recession is dated 1922-1942. The second wave of
democratization comes with a victory over national socialism and becoming of
democracy, first of all in the Western Germany, Italy, Japan. This wave
proceeds to the middle of the 60th (1943-1962). The second recession takes a
time interval between 1958 and 1975. 1974 becomes the beginning of a democratic
wave, from the moment of falling of salazarov dictatorship. It captured such
states as Spain, Greece, then extends on series of the countries of Asia, the
Central and Eastern Europe and the USSR [1,49].
What does
democratization represent? Among political scientists there is no unity in the
definition of this term. Most often some researchers consider democratization
as a transition from the authoritative forms of government to democratic. Other
suggest to use the concept "democratic transit" which doesn't assume
obligatory transition to democracy at all, and points to that fact that
democratization represents process with acritical results. Modern democracy by
its nature, they consider, it is always the incomplete project. Therefore these
researchers represent democratization only as a process of emergence of
democratic institutes and values. Thus they represent process of transition or transit
to democracy as the development of three stages: liberalization,
democratization and consolidation.
Liberalization,
in their opinion, is a process of fixing of some civil liberties without
transformation of the executive office power. Despite certain freedom, the
system for the present doesn't change and keeps non-democratic characteristics.
Authoritarian regime weakens its control, reduces repressions, allows
self-organization of opposition, becomes more tolerant to any sort of dissent.
Sometimes the initiative is shown by a regime (liberalization from above), and
at times liberalization happens owing to pressure of masses from below. It
leads to that there are incoincident opinions of rather further development of
the state and society, various interests face. The stage of democratization
begins with it, on which the main thing is an institutionalization, i.e.
introduction of new political institutes. The main sense is carrying out
fundamental elections competitive and representative. After them it is possible
to speak about the introduction of democratization in its finishing phase -
consolidation which assumes rapprochement of both moderate representatives of
reforms, and conservatives.
Considering the
reasons, the conditions, prerequisites promoting democratization it should be
meant that modern researchers allocate series of scientific approaches which
can conditionally be divided into structural and procedural approaches.
Representatives
of structural approach are D. Rastou, S. Lipset, G. Almond, S. Verba, R.
Inglkhart, L. Pai. They try to find out the dependence between social and
economic and cultural factors.
As the main 3
types of structural prerequisites of democracy are allocated:
- finding of
national unity and corresponding identity;
- achievement of
rather high level of economic development;
- mass
distribution of such cultural norms and values, which assume recognition of
democratic principles, trust to the main political institutes, interpersonal
trust, feeling of civic consciousness.
According to the
authoritative scientist D. Rastou existence of national unity which means that
"the vast majority of citizens of potential democracy shouldn't have
doubts or do mental reservations concerning to what political community they
belong" refers to the first preliminary condition of transition to
democracy [2, 659].
To economic
prerequisites of democratization according to S.M. Lipset, it is necessary to
refer:
- the advanced
industrialization;
- widespread
urbanization;
- high literacy;
- certain
welfare.
The more
prosperous is the state, the more it has chances to keep democracy, S.M. Lipset
argues. He reasons this position as follows: capitalist, economic development
leads to social differentiation and it, in its turn, leads to the pluralistic
competition which is a basis of creation of civil society [3, 13].
Characterizing
existence of necessary cultural values as a condition for emergence of
democracy, it is important to emphasize that they rather frame favorable
climate for formation of stable, steady democracy. So, in due time F.A. Hayek
noticed that "if in society collectivist mood will prevail, there will be
the end of democracy, or it will never arise". F.A. Hayek refer to the
main prerequisites first of all, prevalence of the values and installations
overcoming collectivist and patriarchal types of political thinking, oriented
on individualism, rationalism and demythified world perception [4, 421].
From the listed
above democratization conditions modern researchers doesn't have doubts only in
one - national unity and identity preceding democratization. In the relations
of others critical remarks are expressed. So, for example, strict dependence
between the level of social and economic development of society and democracy
is disproved by extensive actual material today. It is known that now there are
states with high level of economic development and have thus a non-democratic
regime (Singapore). It is possible to allocate also the states with quite
developed democratic type of the relations between political institutes and
actors where thus there is a high level of poverty and existence of traditional
social structures and practices (India).
If structural
approach is focused on the existence of the objective social, economic,
cultural and other factors influencing successful or unsuccessful end of
democratic transformations, then a procedural approach which representatives
are G.O. Donnell, F.Shmitter, D. Palma, H.Lints, T. Kari as the necessary basis
of democratization allocate series of factors which are the result of certain
transformations:
- formation of
civil society by ensuring interaction;
- states with
independent public groups and associations;
- development of
democratic procedures and institutes;
- development of
the constitutional state [5, 69].
Between
structural and procedural approaches there is no insuperable contradiction. On
the contrary, they supplement each other.
Thus, the
analysis of various approaches shows that democratization represents difficult,
many-sided concept which is a subject of dispute of many researchers.
Existence of a
large number of these theoretical models is explained not only by
methodological disagreements of authors, but also by diversity of process of
democratization on practice.
All recent
transitions from the non-democratic forms of government in countries of Eastern
Europe, Latin America, Asia, the former USSR show that they are very various.
The author of
this article prefers to consider features of processes of democratization in
the conditions of political modernization on examples of Russia and Kazakhstan.
Characterizing
process of democratization in Russia, it is necessary to highlight that there
is a large number of researches on this problem. However the author thinks it
necessary to consider only three of them:
1. Model of
"causality funnel" of A.Yu.Melvil. According to his characteristics
of the main conditions of democratization process, the scientist referred the
following provisions to them: a) lack of the guaranteed state integrity and
national identity; b) unfavourable factor of economic development; c) lack of
adequate democracy of a social base.
2. Model of "Lenin heritage" C.
Giovita according to whom the main conditions of democratization process are:
a) vertical communications, namely - conservation of personnel structure of a
former executive power office (authoritative oligarchy); b) horizontal
communications aren't institutionalized and interaction is developed poorly.
3. Model of "transformation of political
regimes" of V.Ya. Gelman. According to his research the main conditions of
democratization process are: a) nature of elections - free, but not fair (an
inequality of conditions); b) representative institutes have decorative
character.
Detailed studying
of scientific concepts of the named researchers allowed us to analyse process
of modernization in Russia from the point of view of the historical and
political retrospective. Therefore we came to the following conclusions:
1) In the history
of Russia attempts to provide the accelerated development of the country in
"the European model" were repeatedly made. Thus each of initiators of
reforms didn't consider degree of readiness for them of public consciousness.
Each new attempt of reforming had no continuity and connection with the
previous transformations, practically each reformatory breakthrough came to an
end by partial, or full "kickback".
2) Modernization
in Russia, as a rule, had the late and catching up character as Russia conceded
on the level of social and economic development to the leading countries of
Europe.
3) Modernization
had partial and consumer character as it borrowed technical, scientific and
military achievements at the most developed countries of the West;
4) Practically
each attempt of modernization implementation generated in the Russian society,
so-called, sociocultural split – that is because of violent introduction and
foreign character of innovations there were numerous antireformatively affected
groups and layers, generating the acute social conflicts and crises.
As for model of
political modernization of modern Russia, it is necessary to notice that most
of the Russian authors (A.Yu.Melvil, V.Ya. Gelman, V. Yelizarov) pay more
attention to the characteristic of number of the factors which are unfavourably
influencing this process. They refer to the most important of them [6]:
1. Lack of the
guaranteed state integrity and national identity;
2. Implementation
of the process of democratization in the conditions of the low level of
economic development, and also an administrative way of reforms implementation;
3. Lack of
adequate democracy of a social base;
4. The
sociocultural sphere and mentality of society obviously don't promote the
implementation of radical market transformations (infantile and paternalistic
complexes, patriarchal and collectivist orientations of public consciousness,
social apathy).
To number of
positively influencing factors on process of democratization in Russia, the
famous political scientist A.Yu.Melvil, refers geopolitical and strategic
factors [7, 337].
As for
modernization processes in Kazakhstan, studying of national history grants to
us the right to note that in our country till the 18th century the
modernization was connected with attempts of formation of uniform Kazakh statehood.
However this process was suspended from the beginning of of Kazakhstan joining
to Russia. Therefore in the subsequent history of political modernization of
Kazakhstan home scientists allocate such periods as the end of 18 century – the
beginning of 20 century and the period from 1917 to 1991 [8, 144].
Analyzing the
named periods we come to the conclusions that:
1) For Kazakhstan
the end of 18 century – the beginning of 20 century is the period of colonial
modernization for which the following features were characteristic:
- combination of
vectors of Russia and Kazakhstan development;
- a basis of
colonial policy was russification of Kazakhs;
- fixing of
colonial domination of Russia was expressed not only in eradication of old and
planting of new institutes of the power. For example, at the end of the 18th
century the khan’s power was liquidated, but at the same time such traditional
structure of society as division into zhuz which promoted success of policy of
the Russian Empire "Divide and rule" was preserved;
- survivability
of tradition was shown in love of freedom of Kazakhs, respect for the person,
lack of obsequious worship of the power, comparative freedom and equality of
women;
- reforms,
undoubtedly, caused the antagonism which is expressed in opposition of
traditions and innovations which found reflection in the people's liberation
movement (for example, K. Kasymov's, I. Taymanov’s rebellions).
2) It is possible
to call the period of 1917 - 1991 the period of neocolonial modernization which
is characterized by the following features:
- this period was the continuation of policy
of traditional colonialism;
- destruction of traditional society which
was expressed in elimination of a nomadic way of life was the main objective of
modernization in Kazakhstan during this period;
- such methods as supercentralization, potent
ideologization were chosen as the main means of modernization;
- elimination of illiteracy which in the
future gave a certain degree of access to intellectual resources became the key
moment of the accelerated modernization;
- despite the forced, rigid character of
modernization, nevertheless in Kazakhstan such elements of traditional culture
as a tribalism, corporatism, compromise mentality have been preserved;
- the ideology of internationalism brought
together the representatives of the title nation to the level of the static
observer of political processes.
With the collapse
of the USSR in the modern chronicle of Kazakhstan the new transition period
which main contents was a post-socialist modernization urged to provide final
parting with the Soviet totalitarianism, to finish transition of Kazakhstan
from traditional society to modern community, to overcome lines of unfinished
industrial system and to pass to a post-industrial phase, opened. In this
regard Kazakhstan was involved in global process of democratization, in its
"third wave". That the choice is made finally, the President of
Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev as early as the mid-nineties declared. "Our choice
is already defined, the purpose is designated. However we are faced a problem
of a choice of democratic development model" - he wrote in one of his
works [9, 150].
During the
studying of works of Kazakhstan political scientists, that fact that in a
certain degree the dosed criticism of economic and political reforms is given
in them attracts attention. The weak status of applied problems of political
modernization of a transition period in Kazakhstan, as, however, and in Russia
is observed. Practically there are no complex scientific researches in the
field of comparative political modernization. Also there are no researches of
key parameters and criteria of political modernization on which it is possible
to carry out comparative and comparable characteristics.
Before considering
features of democratic transformations in Kazakhstan, according to the domestic
researcher A.Sh.Musyrman, it is necessary to pay attention that in the
conditions of independence acquisition the carried-out modernization in the
country could be divided into 2 periods:
1. 1991-1995 -
the period of influence overcoming of disintegration processes of the Soviet
system (so-called transition period).
2. 1996-2012 –
the period of strong base creation of modernization on the basis of own
identity [8, 170].
Characteristic of the first stage
(1991-1995) of the modernization process in Kazakhstan is as follows:
- the country
during 1991-1995 had to find its statehood, the democratic Constitution, the
foreign and domestic policy, create its economy.
- establishment
of Kazakhstan independence made the extremely important determination of key
parameters of the state foreign policy. The leadership of Kazakhstan in the
basis of the course of foreign policy underlay the following principles:
refusal of psychology of block opposition and search of policy of mutual trust;
use of benefits of its geopolitical situation; rising of a role of the country
in affairs of the world community.
- the idea of
eurasianism, according to the scenario offered by N. Nazarbayev in the project
“Euroasian Union” became the strong base of geopolitical development.
Eurasianism, on the one hand, confirmed that the country found the place in the
world of democratic values, began to solve modernization problems taking into
account the spiritual beginnings of the Kazakh civilization, and on the other
hand, reflected comprehension of that Kazakhs and Russians are
"doomed" to interaction as the fates decree. And already on the basis
of such vision to build the course of foreign and domestic policy.
- the internal
policy was defined by the needs for solution of the whole complex of problems,
namely: problems of formation of national statehood, problems of interrelation
of reforms and democracy; problems of the solution of sociocultural transformation
of Kazakhstan society; and also problems of search of national idea in a
foreshortening of new political ideology which basis is reflected by the
following thesis: "Kazakhstan is, on the one hand, the ethnic center of
Kazakhs, on the other, it’s the general Fatherland of all citizens of the
republic irrespective of their national identity";
- the country
leaders in a transition period paid special attention to a dialogue problem
"power- society". In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize that
one of the main results of the first period was that in the Republic there were
neither potent demonstrations, nor any large protest movements. It, in its
turn, testified that modernization processes in Kazakhstan were carried out in
the conditions of stability and order.
Thus, the new
state in a transition period successfully solved two interconnected problems:
1) overcame the
influence of disintegration processes of the Soviet system;
2) left from the
extremely dangerous opposition of the power and society.
Characteristic of
the second stage (1996-2012) of the modernization process in Kazakhstan shows
that it was time of development of the country on strong base of own identity.
To the main objectives of this period we can refer:
- justification
of strategy and tactics of modernization;
- confirmation of
liberal democracy as form of development and progress;
- creation of the
market as a tool of the problems solution of domestic economy development;
- revival of the
world of values of Kazakh civilization, considerations of multinational
structure of modern Kazakhstan society, approval of peace and harmony in it.
Proceeding from
these tasks, it was important for Kazakhstan to choose that model which with
the greatest completeness would embody possibilities of a sustainable
development, would keep stability of political system, increase of production,
would reduce risks of uncertainty. Therefore, it is quite natural that for
successful implementation of these tasks it was necessary to create the strong
presidential power allowing to carry out the chosen course of development. This
factor, in our opinion, is defining in modernization transformations of
Kazakhstan society.
Confirmation of
this thesis is initiation by the President of the country of Strategy 2030 which
was directed on cardinal modernization of economy, public administration and
social policy of Kazakhstan. It is necessary to notice that it was one of the
first programs in the former Soviet Union providing realization of long-term
priorities of development among which the major priorities are: national
security, internal political stability and consolidation of society, economic
growth which is based on an open market economy with the high level of foreign
investments and internal savings, wellbeing of Kazakhstan citizens. Realization
of the main objectives of this program of our republic development allowed
ahead of schedule the President of the country to put forward even more
ambitious program – Strategy 2050. Now this program is the main strategic document
which defines the main vectors of political modernization in Kazakhstan in the
contemporary history.
Today it is
obvious that exactly the existence of accurate strategy, and its consecutive
realization allowed our state to become the leader in many socio-economic
indexes in all former Soviet Union.
It would be
incorrect to believe that modernization is "a triumphal procession"
of ideas of Strategy 2030. There are also unfavourable factors which can be
referred to the following:
- weakness of
democratic institutes, such as the controlled Parliament, controlled party
system;
- administrative
way of implementation of economic and political reforms;
- conservation of
influence of authoritative moods in society;
- lack of
constructive, charismatic opposition.
The carried-out
comparative analysis of models of modernization processes in Kazakhstan and
Russian Federation gives us the chance to come to the following general
results:
1) Both states
are at peculiar "intersection" of political, economic, cultural,
confessional influences which are the reflection of common destinies of the of
Russian and Kazakhstan people.
2) Transition
from totalitarianism to democracy lies through authoritarianism, or so-called
"controlled democracy". Justification is that on the first place
stability moves forward which is the pledge of the solution of a complex of
political, economic, social tasks.
3) For both
Post-Soviet states weakness of democratic institutes is characteristic: the
controlled parliament, controlled party system, charismatic heads of states.
4) The main
creator of the Russian and Kazakhstan modernization is the state, and civil
societies in them are fragmentary and amorphous.
5) The dominating
modernization tendency in Kazakhstan and Russian Federation was the destruction of structures and connections of
the former system in all spheres of vital activity of society, however search
of new models of development put in the forefront the idea of centrist
arrangements in carrying out socially oriented reforms.
In the
conclusion, authors consider necessary to draw the following conclusions:
1) The analysis
of various approaches to the concept "democratization" shows that
this difficult many-sided phenomenon which is the subject of dispute of many
researchers. The only thing that doesn't raise doubts of many authors, is that
the main condition of democratization is the national unity and identity and
that these processes have a long-term character.
2) Characteristic
features of the Russian democratization as the main indicator of modern
political modernization of society are:
- lack of the guaranteed state integrity;
- conservation of unfavourable level of
economic development;
- existence of patriarchal and collectivist
orientation of public consciousness.
3) Characteristic
features of Kazakhstan political modernization in the conditions of democratic
transition are:
- the state integrity which is the strong
base of democratic transformations;
- existence of more or less favorable
economic situation in the republic;
- carrying out the modernization on the basis
of own identity (revival of the world of values of the Kazakh civilization,
multinational structure of modern Kazakhstan society).
4) The
comparative analysis of modern models of modernization in Kazakhstan and
Russian Federation shows that the following general provisions are
characteristic for them:
- there is a
weakness of democratic institutes, for example the controlled Parliament,
controlled parties;
- the main
creator of the Russian and Kazakhstan modernization is the state, civil
societies are fragmentary and amorphous;
- transition from
totalitarianism to democracy lies through authoritarianism, so-called
"controlled democracy".
References
1. Huntington S.
The third wave: Democracy at the turn of the century. M.:2003.
2. Rastou D.A.
Transitions to democracy: policy of dynamic model // Political science: The
anthology / under the editorship of M.A. Vasilik. M., 1999.
3. Melvil A.YU.
Democratic transits. Theoretic-methodological and applied aspects. M.:1999.
4. Hayek F.A. The
way to the slavery / Anthology of world political thought. In 5 volumes. V. II.
Foreign political thought of the XX century / Project manager G.Yu.Semigin,
etc. M.: Mysl, 1997.
5. Mashan M.S.
Political modernization in the former Soviet Union: preliminary results //
Sayasat. - February-March. - 2000.
6. Theory of
political modernization / Political science: Manual. Stavropol, 2006 //
http://all-politologija.ru/knigi/politologiya-uchebnoe-posobie/
7. Melvil A.YU.
Democratic transits, transitological theories and postcommunist Russia /
Political science in Russia: intellectual search and reality: Anthology /
Publishing editor- redactor A.D. Voskresensky. M.: 2000.
8. Musyrman A.Sh.
Kazakhstan in the conditions of modernization. XX – the beginning of XXI
centuries. Petropavlovsk, 2007.
9. Nazarbayev N.
A. On a threshold of the XXI century. Almaty, 1996.