On some problems of classification of political parties

Major methodological job in the survey of political parties is their categorization ( typology ) . Since it has ever faced by all research workers of political history and thesis, doing certain the theoretical complexness and ambiguity of the job, in the absence of a incorporate or at least “ basic ” categorization, expressed in a multiplicity of attacks and standards for the typology of parties and the demand to develop some basic consensus in the block theoretic and methodological issues.

It should be stressed that this issue is by and large better developed by political scientists than historiographers, though among them there is no look of the integrity of attacks, standards for the categorization of political parties both in historical footings, and particularly in modern conditions. In political scientific discipline normally focuses on the possibility of utilizing different standards, among whom some consider the root features parties, and others – and even minor random.

Modern western political scientific discipline in most instances it carries out the categorization of parties based on the acknowledgment of plurality and the equality of assorted characters. Therefore, both parties used the division of autocratic and democratic, ideological and matter-of-fact, national and regional, spiritual and secular, the monolithic, human and elitist, representative and mobilising etc. Such a categorization allows to qualify the party with the assorted parties. At the same clip, acknowledgment of the multiple standard poses a hazard of disregarding or minimizing the basic features of the parties ( their package and ideological beliefs, schemes, tactics, etc. [ 1, p.30 ] .

It should be recognized as a practical value of modern political scientific discipline thesis on the rightness of including the association of specific discrepancies of the typology of political parties with the aims of a peculiar scientific survey of the relationship types of parties and party systems in footings of societal development [ 2, p.4 ] .

Russia ‘s modern history political scientific discipline does non run, unluckily, a individual ( common ) typology of political parties as the pre-revolutionary Russia, and modern Russia. Thus, some experts focus on the party systems of the yesteryear and the grade of political resistance parties in the present [ 3, s.278-350 ] . Another group of scientists shared the western methodological rule of equal standards for analysing the plurality of political parties [ 4, p.231-232 ] . Third exercising typology based on the organisational construction and rank, the graduated table of the two – and a multiparty system [ 5, p.183-187 ] , etc.

In our sentiment, in Russia ( and Belarussian ) scientific discipline of history and political scientific discipline at manus: a ) inappropriate acknowledgment of absolute mass, at least, the category categorization standard of political parties, and B ) the absence of a individual strategy ( hence the common standards ) typology of domestic and foreign parties ; degree Celsius ) effort to supply universal and the most normally accepted categorization system of parties. In this 3rd job is solved really slow and hard, when confronted with the contradictions and disagreements of scientific, political, ideological and subjective nature.

However, there is the feeling that the system of political parties is non chaos and, hence, can be theoretically rationalized. Petersburg research worker SI Stepanov wrote that “ the categorization as a method of larning a big figure of empirical stuff, as a mark of comprehension of kernel of the phenomenon… is a value in themselves political scientific discipline instrument to adequately reflect the political world of the retrospective and prognostic maps ” [ 6, p.16 ] .

Surely, there is about universally recognized fact that decrease is attributed to the ability of social-class attack, antecedently the most common in the Soviet historical scientific discipline. The current worlds of the information society requires a alteration outdated position of political relations as a “ concentrated look of economic sciences ” , a reappraisal of the political party as the advocate of the involvements of certain societal categories and groups.

At the same clip, even in modern Russian generalising “ History of the Party ” plants are conspicuously absent integrity of attacks, standards and sentiments as a affair of categorization of political parties and the general methodological apprehension of party-political issues.

For illustration, a text edition on the history of political parties of Russia in 1994 the publication pointed out that the categorization of parties is carried out “ on all of the built-in characteristic characteristics: a societal model, political plan, strategic and tactical rules. The writers insisted that the footing for the categorization of parties must be shown the full set of factors ( societal category, political, national, moral and ethical, spiritual, etc. ) . However, they noted that, depending on the ends and aims of the analysis of political parties is one of many standards could talk to the bow, while the other plays a encouraging function [ 7, p.8-9 ] . Then as in the text edition were identified: a ) All-Russia party and the national B ) the monarchy, the businessperson and petty-bourgeois and individually Bolsheviks [ 7, p.11 ] .

Encyclopedic edition on the history of political partie

s in pre-revolutionary Russia ( 1996 ) assumed that the cardinal differences between the parties and motions clearly traced to the doctrinal degree, and hence proposed to apportion three software-political axis ( waies ) : conservative, broad and socialist parties [ 8, p.5-6 ] . Immediately it should be noted that alternatively of the class of “ socialist ” was more appropriate to utilize the term “ extremist ” .

Modernize Russia ‘s text edition on the history of political parties ( 2000 ) concludes that “ the current province of cognition allows us to suggest the undermentioned categorization: conservative, broad, middle of the roader and socialist parties and motions ” [ 9, p.9 ] . The term “ middle of the roader ” is non commented and non explained, so make non understand precisely what the party should be assigned to this unit.

I think that, foremost, basically unacceptable to sort political parties on the footing of diverse standards and demand to come to the greatest possible acknowledgment of the taking ( basic ) standards of historical typology of parties. Second, the structuring of the national parties ( Belarusian, Polish, Judaic, etc. ) do non ever suit into the overall categorization of political parties.

In our position, the basic standard for categorization can be software-ideological orientation of political parties, proposing their division at the reactionist, conservative, reformer ( broad ) and extremist ( radical ) . And within each block must take into history the grade of political radicalism of certain parties in relation to associate political constructions. We believe that this theoretical and methodological attack can be used both for the parties of the yesteryear, and for the systematisation of modern parties.

At the same clip does non except the possibility of utilizing both classs of “ right – left – the middle of the roader ” party. In this instance, nevertheless, should pay attending to the fact that: a ) the typology ( in the tradition of the Gallic Revolution ) greatly simplifies the job, because in such a strategy is hard to squash the spiritual, ethnic-national and other involvements, and B ) historically adjustably really content of the constructs “ right ” and “ Left ” , degree Celsius ) is highly hard to more or less clearly defined what constitutes a party-political centre.

Underscoring the complexness of the categorization of national parties in a public instruction, we can presume that when they are forming, in add-on to the base ( software-ideological ) rule should be considered: a ) the extent of radicalism in relation to public and political centre ( Imperial, Federal… ) B ) the presence ( absence ) , confessional constituent, etc.

With Russian historiographers and political scientists linked categorization of political parties with the province of public consciousness. They use the categorical concatenation “ value – doctrine – political orientation – the philosophy. In this universe position is characterized as a general image of the universe, and a hierarchy of penchants based on changing values, political orientation – as a description of the coveted province of society and the chief waies of motion to it, the philosophy – as the action and tactics to accomplish the ends set by political orientation.

Every attempt shall be emphasized that in their apprehension of the “ Party – consciously organized and socially active representative of a peculiar type of mass consciousness ” [ 6, p.17 ] . In an effort to give an absolute historical typology of political parties ( particularly modern Russia ) St. Petersburg, scientists are taking as a footing for ideological values ( national, broad, socialist ) and apportion the appropriate group of parties [ 6, sch.19-23 ] . We believe that such an attack, on the one manus, rather convincingly sound statements, but on the other manus, needs to historical specificity, and farther theoretical analysis

Mentions

1. Piulsky, EV Politics: the texts of talks: In 2 hours / EV Piulsky. – Grodno: & # 1043 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1043 ; & # 1059 ; , 1993. – P.2. – 58 pp.

2. The history of societal motions and political parties: the course of study / comp. AN Nechuhrin. – Grodno: Grodn.filial HIS, 1999. – 24.

3. Russia historical political scientific discipline: a class of talks / Editorial Board. : SA Kislitsyn ( otv.red. ) [ And others ] . – Rostov on Don: Feniks, 1998. – 608 pp.

4. Politicss in Russia against the background: a preparation manual / Editorial Board. : PI Simush ( otv.red. ) [ And others ] . – Moscow: Luch, 1993. – 426 pp.

5. Hajiyev, KS Introduction to political scientific discipline: a text edition / KS Hajiyev. – 2 erectile dysfunction. – M. : Logos, 1997. – 544.

6. Political parties, motions and organisations of modern Russia at the bend of the century: Anal. Handbook, Ed. JH Barygin. – St. Petersburg: Izd VA Mikhailova, 1999. – 208 pp.

7. History of political parties in Russia: Textbook. / NG Dumova [ and others ] , ed. AI Zevelev. – M. : Higher School, 1994. – 447.

8. Political parties in Russia, the terminal & # 1061 ; 1 & # 1061 ; – the first tierce of the 20th century: Encyclopedia / Editorial Board. : VV Shelohaev ( otv.red. ) [ And others ] . – M. : ROSSPEN, 1996. – 872 pp.

9. Political parties in Soviet union: history and modernness: Textbook. / Editorial Board. : AI Zevelev, VV Shelohaev, Yu P Sviridenko ( otv.redaktory ) [ and others ] . – M. : ROSSPEN, 2000. – 631 pp.