The church should help the army. The federal structure of the state presupposes

Portal for the student. Self-training

The church should help the army. The federal structure of the state presupposes

Portal for the student. Self-training

Task number 2 Correspondence of elements from two lists (1 point for each correct answer)

Task number 3 Tasks in the text (2 points for each correct answer)

Task number 2 Correspondence of elements from two lists (1 point for each correct answer)

Task number 3 Tasks in the text (2 points for each correct answer)

Task number 2 Correspondence of elements from two lists (1 point for each correct answer)

Task number 3 Tasks in the text (2 points for each correct answer)

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

RELATED ARTICLES

Until quite recently, it was difficult to imagine such a close and constructive interaction between the army and the church in our society. Well, today military commanders and chiefs have realized that the clergy have become assistants in educating personnel, creating an atmosphere of spirituality and patriotism in military collectives.

The participation of military personnel in worship services has become a good tradition

“A military man needs spiritual support. Because the risks associated with military service are so great that they cannot be compensated by any material benefits. No material benefits can compensate for injuries, and even more so for the loss of life, ”said Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at one of his meetings with military personnel. “And if a person takes an oath and gives obligations, if necessary, to give his life for the Motherland, this means that this type of service to the country and people requires tremendous moral strength.”

Duty is a moral concept. Only an inner awareness of the need to fulfill one's duty, trust in the will of God and His assistance help a person not to lose courage in the most difficult circumstances. “All this is the reason why the Church has always been, is and will be with the Armed Forces, doing everything to spiritually support, strengthen and educate military personnel in their devoted service to the Motherland, impeccable loyalty to the oath, readiness to protect their people even at the cost of their own lives,” Patriarch Kirill emphasized.

The head of the Synodal Department of the Belarusian Orthodox Church for Cooperation with the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus and other military formations, Archpriest Sergiy Kuzmenkov.

Father Sergius, what are the historical roots of the interaction between the Orthodox Church and the Armed Forces?

The history of interaction between the Church and the Armed Forces is very old. The union of ministers of faith and the army began to form from the first centuries of the adoption of Christianity in Russia.

The Russian army was understood only as a holy valiant army, calling it Christ-loving. Among the saints revered by the Orthodox Church are Theodore Stratilat, Dmitry Thessalonica, George the Victorious, Russian commanders the holy noble princes Alexander Nevsky and Dmitry Donskoy, the passion-bearing princes Boris and Gleb, princes Mikhail and Gleb of Chernigov, monks Alexander Peresvet and Andrey Oslyabya.

Our people have always lived with God. And therefore, any of his good deeds was preceded by a prayer before starting a good deed. Russian squads went into battle with the blessing of the church, under the holy banners and the intercession of miraculous icons. Faith was of great importance for them - it inspired confidence in victory, in the rightness of their cause. And there are many examples of this.

Before the Battle of Kulikovo, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy arrived at the Holy Trinity Monastery, where he prayed for a long time and received a blessing from the Monk Abbot of the monastery Sergius of Radonezh, who sent two of his monks with the prince - Alexander Peresvet and Andrey Oslyabya. After that battle on September 16, 1380, Dmitry Donskoy, having defeated Mamai, again visited the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, where he commemorated the Orthodox soldiers who died on the Kulikovo field.

The facts of fasting and prayer of the Russian army before the campaigns of commander Alexander Suvorov are also known.

Russian soldiers have always followed the words of the Gospel, “There is no greater love than if someone lays down his life for his friends” (Gospel of John, 15:13).

Priests were next to soldiers and officers in battles and campaigns, shared victories and failures with them, blessed and inspired the army to a feat, consoled the wounded, saw off the dead on their last journey ... However, the revolutions of the early twentieth century brought militant atheism, the fruits of which we are reaping to this day since.

How does the Belarusian Orthodox Church cooperate with the Armed Forces at the present stage? How strong is its influence among the defenders of the Fatherland?

In May 1998, the first conference "Church and Army" was held. Its result was the conclusion of an Agreement between the Belarusian Orthodox Church and the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus.

After the signing of the Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of Belarus and the Belarusian Orthodox Church on July 12, 2003, cooperation agreements were concluded with the State Committee of the Border Troops and the Ministry of Defense, and specific cooperation programs were developed. Based on the decision of the Synod of the Belarusian Orthodox Church of October 22, 2003, in order to more clearly coordinate and organize activities, by decrees of the ruling bishops in each diocese, a priest was appointed responsible for interaction with law enforcement agencies, and a permanent priest was assigned to each military unit. It was from that time that active cooperation began between the ministers of the faith and the defenders of the Motherland, which strengthened the previously established contacts between the church and the army.

The clergy conscientiously work in the spiritual field, holding individual and group conversations with soldiers, ensigns and officers, cadets, students of the Suvorov and cadet schools. Both I and my colleagues testify that military personnel very often ask for a personal meeting with a priest. What are they asking? These are questions of faith and its search, how to build your spiritual image in the army, relationships with parents, with girls, and many others.

Dean of the Slonim Church District Priest Vadim Petlitsky conducts classes with cadets of secondary school No. 9 in Slonim

The clergyman is a neutral person to whom you can always open up without fear of any consequences. And such a conversation very often makes it possible for a friend to look at the problem that has arisen, to find its solution, to find peace of mind.

By the way, people in uniform repeatedly expressed gratitude to the clergy who carry out pastoral service in military groups for wise advice and concrete help. It is also not uncommon for a person in uniform to take a blessing from a clergyman. A person who has received a spiritual parting word is hard to overcome by an enemy who seeks to enslave his spirit, will.

From a spiritual standpoint, we often become slaves to sin. Faith contributes to the fact that people free themselves from the slavery of sin, passion. We must improve. And perfection can only be in creativity, when a person is free.

Archpriest Sergiy Kuzmenkov serves a prayer service for the repose of the souls of fallen soldiers

Now many people are sick with alcoholism, drug addiction. Soulless drugs, vodka lead perfect rational beings who cease to be responsible for their actions. And this is a misfortune... Can warriors subjected to such intoxication improve themselves creatively, take responsibility for the safety of their compatriots? Undeniably not. Therefore, the church has always been there, protecting a person from captivity - first of all, the spirit.

In numerous conversations with military personnel, we try to invest in them the awareness of our service: the defense of the Motherland is a sacred, holy duty of a citizen, and not work. The clergy focus on the fact that our ancestors, who were heroes, also wore military uniforms. And in no case should its current owners lose their honor.

Church of the Holy Martyr John the Warrior at the 11th Guards Separate Mechanized Brigade

Before taking the oath, all military personnel are interviewed by a priest who reminds young people of the importance of the upcoming event in their lives.

After all, the Military Oath is a word that should remain true to the end and for the violation of which you need to be held accountable. And the oath in the presence of a priest is a double responsibility. If you break this vow, you will be condemned before God and the people. As it is said in Holy Scripture: "By the word you will be justified, by the word you will be condemned." Not everyone is capable of being a defender of the Fatherland. The task of the church is to help the warrior improve in spirit, in spiritual strength, so that he understands the responsibility that he places on his shoulders.

Now young people who are well versed in the field of religion are being drafted into the army. This is facilitated by the holding of various forums on relevant topics, the activities of Sunday schools, open access to spiritual literature, etc. And if earlier it was necessary to start a story about the faith and lifestyle of a believer from the very beginning, now such a need has disappeared. Which is very encouraging.

However, this knowledge needs to be improved. And not only for active military personnel, but also for those who are preparing to become a professional in the military field. For example, students of the Minsk Suvorov Military School undergo serious spiritual training. But this is not the case at the Military Academy ... I would like such a practice to exist at all levels of military education.

If we talk about other forms of cooperation between the Belarusian Orthodox Church and the Armed Forces, these include the rituals of consecrating combat banners, equipment and weapons, which should be used exclusively for defense, not attack. The Church blesses only for the defense of the Fatherland. As long as evil exists in the world, it must be protected from it. We must be ready to defend the purity of our people.

In addition, premises in military units are consecrated with holy water, Orthodox corners and libraries are being created. It has long been a good tradition of congratulations on Orthodox holidays, the participation of military personnel in divine services.

What steps does the Belarusian Orthodox Church intend to take in terms of strengthening its influence in society in general and in the Armed Forces in particular?

Every person who undertakes a special service to society puts on a uniform that is always associated with trust. These are military personnel, priests, rescuers, doctors. The service of these people cannot be limited by time frames. She imposes a certain vow on a serving person - to sacrifice himself for the sake of other people.

If we talk about the church and the army, they have a lot in common. The army protects citizens from the visible enemy, and the church - from the invisible. Both of these enemies bring great harm to mankind. Moreover, weapons as a means of struggle fade into the background. The war is for the soul of man. Therefore, the church sees its main goals in strengthening the spirit of people in uniform, teaching them to properly understand the basics of faith, without dividing military personnel according to religious beliefs. It unites the military collective for spiritual protection. A clergyman is a kind of spiritual doctor, guardian, mentor.

Let's take pre-revolutionary history: military (regimental) temples operated in the army at that time, where a priest was constantly present. He was charged with providing spiritual assistance to service people of any faith.

Currently, over 15 military churches operate on the territory of Belarus - separately standing, under construction, in which priests carry out their obedience.

The first of them was opened on the territory of a part of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is gratifying that they are not empty, the servicemen go here of their own free will, and not at the insistence of the command. Of course, a believing soldier builds his relationship with colleagues not at the peak of evil.

The military temple keeps in itself certain spiritual military traditions, with which the army is strong. By building temples, we preserve and revive traditions that allow our people to “be called human”.

Another important point is the strengthening of mutual understanding between the clergy and the military. Soon there will be a document regulating these relationships. Priests must be able to work with people in uniform. At one time, Metropolitan Philaret, blessing the clergy for the pastoral care of the soldiers, admonished them with these words: "We must help, not harm the defenders of the Fatherland." In this regard, the Synodal Department of the Belarusian Orthodox Church for Cooperation with the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus and other military formations intends to organize permanent seminars for the clergy who minister to the army.

The priest must be a model for the flock, a "glass" through which one can see God. He comes from the people, being the bearer of grace, which is given to him in the sacrament of ordination. A clergyman should teach people to let God into their souls, to build their relationships with each other on the basis of love.

It will soon be a year since the appointment of the new Metropolitan of Minsk and Zaslavl, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus. What has changed during this time in the interaction between the Belarusian Orthodox Church and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus?

Vladyka is systematically interested in these questions. Visiting the dioceses of the Belarusian Orthodox Church, he often visits regimental churches. Metropolitan Pavel advocates that they constantly have priests who will satisfy the spiritual needs of the military team. To date, 99 clergy have pastoral obedience on an ongoing basis for interaction on the territory of military units.

Consecration of the banner of the Slonim Cadet Corps in the Holy Dormition Cathedral of the Zhirovichi Monastery

Metropolitan Pavel of Minsk and Zaslavl, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus, also outlined many tasks in terms of implementing and improving programs of cooperation between the church and the army. The Synodal Department of the Belarusian Orthodox Church for Cooperation with the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus and other military units periodically analyzes them. Our task is to create a basis on which fruitful bilateral cooperation can be built.

I emphasize that the leadership of the Belarusian Orthodox Church is constantly in close contact with the leaders of the Ministry of Defense of Belarus, the border department and internal troops, which testifies to mutual respect and common interests.

What do you wish to the defenders of the Fatherland - the readers of the Belarusian Military Newspaper. For the glory of the Motherland?

I want to wish them strength of spiritual and bodily strength, to be true to their word, which is the Military Oath. And also remember: who, if not they, will protect the house ?!

We are all united by a common goal - to maintain peace and tranquility in our native land. May God's blessing accompany us all in these good and good intentions.

Interviewed by OKSANA KURBEKO, photo by Elena Zatirka and from the archive of the Synodal Department of the Belarusian Orthodox Church for cooperation with the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus and other military formations

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

At present, the problems of the relationship between the army and politics are perhaps the most popular direction in military and political science. This is confirmed by the ongoing numerous discussions of social scientists, military and political figures on this issue. All of them, without exception, note that, due to various subjective and objective reasons, these relationships did not always line up and develop in one vector direction.

History knows many examples when the interests of the army and the state diverged, and then these relations came into conflict and even confrontation, plunging society into a state of crisis, and the state lost stability and even sovereignty. An example of this is the Roman Empire, where the army, often dissatisfied with its position, overthrew dictators, consuls and even emperors, clearing the way for new Caesars, Caligulas and Pompeys.

The relationship between the army and politics increased immeasurably in the 17th-19th centuries - in the era of the formation of national states. Russia did not remain aloof from this process, where the guards played a key role in the succession to the throne. It was thanks to the military that the reign of Peter I and Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Catherine the Great and Alexander I became possible. Military despotism was a characteristic phenomenon for most ancient states, the feudal monarchies of Europe and the empires of the East.

N. Machiavelli, Peter I, A. Jomini, F. Engels, K. Klauzevets, K. Marx, V. Lenin, M. Frunze and other politicians and military men pointed out the huge influence of the army on the political life of society.

The problems of the relationship between the army and politics in the modern era excited the minds of prominent scientists, military, political figures: C. de Gaulle, G. Moltke, C. Moskos, A. Svechin, S. Tyushkevich, V. Serebrennikov, M. Gareeva, A. Kokoshin , J. Ortega y Gasset and others. All of them, both in the past and in the present, noted that the army in the centuries-old history of mankind has always been a constant, indispensable and active participant in political life, has acted as the main support and strength of the state in the implementation of its internal and foreign policy. In addition, as K. Marx noted in his time, the army not only supported one or another political force in the struggle for power, but also repeatedly took it into its own hands, sometimes determining the fate of peoples and states for many years.

The role of the army in the life of states increased even more in the conditions of the development of capitalism and its highest stage - imperialism. It increasingly began to act as a strike force of the imperialist states in international relations. In particular, the militaristic circles of Germany, Austria-Hungary and other states first plunged the peoples into the abyss of the First World War, and then the revanchist forces led by Germany unleashed the most bloody and destructive aggression against the peoples of Europe and the USSR. The defeat of the aggressive forces of German imperialism and Japanese militarism in World War II by the states of the anti-Hitler coalition radically changed the face of the planet. This found expression in the victory of people's democratic revolutions in a number of Eastern European countries and Asia, in the growth of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries, which ultimately influenced the alignment of political forces in the world and led to the split of the world into two opposite socio-political systems.

These processes caused a surge of militaristic and revanchist sentiments among the military and politicians of Western Europe and the United States and, as a result, led to a military confrontation, unleashing an arms race that eventually grew into a "cold war" between capitalism and socialism.

During these years, the militaristic rhetoric of politicians and military men again began to be heard in the countries of Western Europe and the United States, who, as before, sought to determine the nature of international politics from a position of strength.

Military activity in Western Europe and the United States was no exception. She was echoed by the political leaders of the socialist camp and, first of all, the Soviet Union and China. The first violin was played by the military in the young independent states, which acted as key links in the national liberation movements, proving for the most part the only cohesive force capable of implementing or supporting revolutionary democratic transformations.

At the beginning of the third millennium, the relationship between the army and politics acquired a qualitatively different state.

Gone are the days when the military elite could almost single-handedly solve the problems of power: in the state, determine or change its internal policy, choose a strategy for social development, influence the nature and content of interstate relations.

The military replaced the military in many states with civilian leaders, and the army turned from an active means of politics into its object, and the military in the new conditions was given the role of executing the political will of the social groups ruling in society. Time has left its mark on the army itself. Firstly, it has ceased to be a caste group and has become a serious social and political force. Secondly, the army today is a numerous, active, close-knit and disciplined team. Thirdly, the armed forces, and primarily their command staff, currently represent a significant intellectual potential, which, under certain conditions, can have a significant impact on the social and political life of a modern state.

Knowing this perfectly well, statesmen, representatives of political parties and organizations are constantly "flirting" with the military elite, seeking to enlist its support, while pursuing their own specific corporate goals. In turn, the highest command staff, or the so-called military elite, has turned into a powerful lobbying corporate group that has the strongest influence on political power on such important issues as the military budget, military orders and the allocation of other resources for the maintenance of the army and support for the military-industrial complex. . The leading role in these processes is played by retired military men, many of whom become deputies of legislative bodies, members of governments, sit on the boards of directors of large companies and various foundations, and influence national governments and international military-political structures. An example of this can be the activities of former military men in the United States, Western European countries and other countries, including the Russian Federation, where the highest officers of the army and other law enforcement agencies, after completing their military service, under the patronage of the political leadership, find themselves in the chairs of ministers, governors, and representatives of the president in federal districts and other government and business structures, which provides them with ample opportunities to influence the adoption of managerial decisions in the interests of the military, military-industrial complex and financial and industrial groups associated with the army.

It is well known that the army is the most organized mobile and powerful force, possessing the largest arsenal of technical and human resources. No other social institution of the state can compete with it in strength. Thanks to its power and influence, the army is able to subjugate other institutions of the state, to give a decisive advantage to the party it supports, the military can dominate civilian power. On these qualities of the army back in the nineteenth century. F. Engels pointed out, who wrote that if the army is against certain political forces, then no class will be able to carry out the revolution, that it will not win until the army takes its side. Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia learned this well when, during the First World War, they first ideologically disintegrated the army, and in October 1917 managed to win it over to their side, and this, as you know, largely ensured the success of the revolution.

A similar situation in the 70s. of the last century, the democratic forces of Portugal took advantage, which, relying on the revolutionary-minded part of the military, led by General Gomes, overthrew the reactionary regime in their country. In the 90s. The Russian army proved to be an active supporter of the reorientation of the political and socio-economic development of the country, with its support social transformations were carried out, the destruction of the old and the strengthening of the new power in Russia was carried out.

At various periods in the development of society and the state, the army often manifests itself as a relatively independent and active means of politics. These qualities of the armed forces have repeatedly manifested themselves in the transitional stages of the life of various countries, at the turn of eras, in periods of acute social and political crises. In such an environment, the civil administration is usually replaced by the power of the military. At the same time, the army acts as the main subject of politics. The latter is manifested in the growing influence of people in uniform on the formation of domestic and foreign policy, in the rapprochement of the army with political groups whose interests and goals coincide with the desires of the military elite. This is how the army behaved in the 60-70s. 20th century in Greece, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, Chile and other countries.

To date, the scientific community has formed basically two diametrically opposed points of view on the place and role of the army as a means and object of politics. One of them is based on the primacy of the military as the main means of resolving territorial, national, social and other disagreements. The other is based on the opinion that in modern conditions the army should be neutral and therefore the military should be excluded from participation in politics. This point of view was once expressed by Western political scientists J. Doorn, H. Baldwin, D. Schlosser, etc. find no practical evidence. Events in Yugoslavia, Transcaucasia, Moldova, the confrontation between the Kurds and the government in Turkey, Basque separatism in Spain, the Kosovo problem in Serbia and other conflicts were stopped or frozen largely thanks to the armed forces. In our opinion, the army, along with other means, in the near future will continue to be the guarantor of stability and peace in the explosive regions of the planet. And this is today confirmed by numerous facts, when the army, by virtue of its position, keeps its hand on the political pulse of the country. Not so long ago events in Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, Venezuela and other states show that the military is not only closely following the development of the political situation in society, but is also actively influencing it. In particular, in May 2007, during the election campaign in Turkey, the army unambiguously stated through the mouth of the chief of the general staff of the country that the military, being the guarantor of the existence of a secular state, would not allow its Islamization.

More than once, various political forces, going for rapprochement or alliance with the army, pursued their corporate interests and goals. As a rule, this is done through various programs, special appeals to military personnel, the proclamation of projects to strengthen and improve the armed forces, improve their social status. Particularly close attention to the army by various political forces is manifested during periods of political crises and the maturing of social tension. In such a situation, the army, critically evaluating the current situation, itself takes the initiative and eliminates destructive forces from the political arena and takes full responsibility for the fate of the country into its own hands. For example, in Chile, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines, the military held power for a long time, in other cases the army held power until the warring parties were ready to create a stable government on a compromise basis, to which it transferred control of the state. In more than 30 countries, the military directly or indirectly took part in intrastate acute social, ethnic and territorial conflicts5.

In the struggle for power, various political groups are clearly aware that the army, under certain conditions, can be an insurmountable obstacle to their path to this goal. Then they consciously undermine the foundations of the army, try to discredit it in the eyes of public opinion and thereby remove it from the political process associated with the seizure of power. For this purpose, a variety of methods and technologies are used: this is the use of the military as police forces to suppress the actions of the masses; elimination of politicians who are in opposition to the authorities, the implementation of terrorist actions against the most popular public and state figures in the country. A classic example of such actions was the recent assassination of Pakistan People's Party leader B. Bhutto.

Thus, a wedge is deliberately driven between the army and the people, which makes society unstable and the process of seizing power more accessible. Such methods are most typical for developing countries, although some examples can be cited from the recent history of European states.

Another form of interconnection between the army and politics took shape in the world after the Second World War. This is the widespread use of the armed forces of nation-states as a kind of "commodity" in interstate relations. Military contingents, by decision of the political leadership, are introduced into the territories of other sovereign states and used there to fight internal opposition, illegal armed formations, to support the ruling political regimes, as well as to realize the national interests of those states on behalf of which they are used as a force.

An example of such a relationship between the army and politics can be the actions of the United States in South Korea, the Philippines, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. A similar policy in the 60-70s. the Soviet Union also carried out, sending its military contingents to Egypt, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and other countries.

The most important indicator of the relationship between the army and politics is its participation in the socio-political life of the country as citizens. In some states (for example, in the USA), the military is partially or completely removed from the political sphere of society. They are forbidden to be in the ranks of political parties, organizations, participate in elections or election campaigns, engage in politics while on active military service. In other countries, the army is an indispensable participant in political life. So, in Germany, Russia and other states, military personnel take an active part in the electoral process, they are allowed to create public organizations, to be members of them, if this does not contradict the current legislation. In particular, in the Russian Law on the Status of a Serviceman, Article 7 states that servicemen have the right to participate in rallies, meetings, street processions, demonstrations, picketing during off-duty hours that do not pursue political goals and are not prohibited by state authorities; and article 9 of the same law states that servicemen may be members of public associations that do not pursue political goals and participate in their activities without being on military duty.

At the turn of the millennium, the nature of the relationship between the army and politics in international affairs changed dramatically. This is due to the fact that the picture of the world has become qualitatively different: it has become multipolar; potential global military threats have disappeared; power in most modern states is concentrated in the hands of democratic forces, at the same time, new problems such as international terrorism have emerged. This forced many states to revise certain provisions of their military doctrines and make significant adjustments to them, according to which their main task at the moment is not to defeat a potential enemy in the face of confrontation between the main actors of world politics, but to prevent the unleashing of a military confrontation, eliminating local armed conflicts.

At the same time, the foreign policy of states has become more balanced and open, in other words, it has ceased to be highly controversial. In many ways, this is the result of the principles of new political thinking, which became in the late 80s. 20th century the basis of the consensual policy of states in international relations and the activities of organizations such as the UN, the OSCE and regional political and legal structures. However, this in no way means that today the influence of the army on the content and nature of interstate relations has been reduced to nothing. Despite the fact that many international problems and contradictions in the modern world are not explosive, nevertheless, the presence of the military is always visible in the process of their solution. This is indicated by the events in the world of recent years, when the unblocking of local conflicts and international problems through negotiations did not give the desired result, and the military force of individual states or their coalitions entered into action. Ethnic conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, in Lebanon, the anti-Iraqi military operation "Desert Storm", the military operations of the NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, the surge of international terrorism in various regions of the world - all this is a clear confirmation that the elimination of conflict situations by non-military means is often ineffective. This was clearly confirmed by recent events in the post-Soviet space and, in particular, by Georgia's military actions in South Ossetia.

A new sphere of activity of the armed forces in the post-war period was their participation in such a difficult, dangerous, but very important for the fate of the world and the progress of the mission, as peacekeeping. It dates back to 1948, when the UN carried out its first peacekeeping operation. Over a period of almost 60 years, the UN conducted 48 peacekeeping operations in various countries, in which more than 750,000 military personnel and civilian police officers from 110 countries of the world took part8.

Soviet peacekeepers first took part in a UN operation in 1973, when a group of military observers arrived in Egypt to ensure the conditions for a truce between Egypt and Israel. Since then, first Soviet and then Russian "blue helmets" have been constantly participating in peacekeeping operations in various regions of the globe. The actions of peacekeeping forces more often occur in countries whose leaders, due to their political and military ambitions, do not always realize the danger of unleashed armed conflicts that are ready to escalate into large-scale military operations. In such cases, the peacekeeping forces, mandated by the UN or another international organization, take all necessary measures, up to the use of force, to stop the armed confrontation between the conflicting parties and cease hostilities. For the most part, peacekeeping forces operate in hot spots on a temporary basis, although the duration of their mission is sometimes stretched for years. An example of such activity is the presence of international peacekeeping forces in the territories of Angola, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Cyprus, the Middle East, the Balkans, Asia and other parts of the world. The presence of peacekeeping forces in conflict zones contributes to ensuring peace and stability in the region. It is thanks to the actions of the Blue Helmets that it is possible to stop the mass bloodshed and thereby save thousands of lives, preserve material and cultural values, stop the genocide against individual peoples, and return hundreds of thousands of refugees to their places of permanent residence.

Today, many states, despite the global trend towards the demilitarization of society, continue to believe that a strong, well-equipped and trained army is the best calling card of the state. Apparently, for this purpose, the Japanese government and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in early May 2007 submitted to Parliament a proposal to change those articles of the Constitution that currently prohibit the Land of the Rising Sun from having a full-fledged army. This, according to Japanese politicians, does not correspond to the status of a great power and limits Japan's ability to more actively influence the development of political processes in the world. Clearly realizing that the army is one of the most reasoned instruments of policy, most countries increase military budgets from year to year, thereby pumping up the muscles of their armed forces. And this is despite the fact that the world community and peace-loving forces oppose the growing militarization on the planet, against the creation of new models of conventional weapons, which in terms of their combat characteristics are approaching, and in some cases their individual types are superior to weapons of mass destruction. However, the positions of these forces do not find a response from the governments, and there is practically no decrease in the levels of the military potential of states, and the agreements concluded in this direction are not being implemented.

Evidence of this policy is the actions of the United States and its NATO partners, which, having signed a treaty on the reduction of conventional arms, do not comply with its provisions.

army political international

Another important example of military involvement in politics was the Partnership for Peace movement. This is a new form of military-political cooperation with NATO, which involves more than 20 states, including Russia. Its main goal is to solve complex international problems based on the development of joint actions to ensure global security and combat international terrorism.

Thus, in the modern public consciousness, as well as in political science, there is now a strong belief that the army, as a means of politics, still plays the most important role in the implementation of the internal policy of the state and the resolution of conflicting international problems, which are currently humanity is facing.

The army is an instrument of politics; it cannot be outside the political process, which has a constant direct and indirect influence on it. As long as there is instability in society, as long as there is a threat of territorial disintegration, the army will be a state tool for maintaining the integrity of the country. The army and politics are inextricably linked. The peculiarities of the political system of the former type include the fact that during the Soviet period of Russian history, the Armed Forces did not play a noticeable domestic political role. The party leadership, which had a monopoly on power, ensured political stability and regulation of society through a large ideological apparatus, as well as state security agencies. These systems controlled the army itself. Under such conditions, the leading party nomenklatura did not need to use the army as an instrument of domestic policy.

Army units were involved in solving internal political problems extremely rarely (for example, in 1962 in Novocherkassk), when the situation, due to an oversight of local authorities, got out of control and people's discontent took the form of an open speech. But these were exceptional cases, which were of a local and episodic nature. In general, the Armed Forces performed an external function, being an instrument of the foreign policy of the state and the only ruling party. The internal function of the army remained, so to speak, "in potential".

In the second half of the 1980s, in the context of an exacerbation of the crisis in the management system of society, the army was gradually involved in the internal political process. Military units began to be used by party and state authorities to counter the political opposition. The forms of participation of the military in those events were different: limited military operations (Baku in 1990 and Vilnius in 1991), the use of army units without the use of firearms (Tbilisi in 1989), the entry of military personnel into the city to psychologically influence the opposition (congress of people's deputies of Russia in March 1991 in Moscow)].

The steady downward trend in the share of the military in society has led to the fact that they have become more than three times less than before the Second World War. In the early 1990s, the tendency to reduce the absolute number of servicemen intensified in almost all states. But the role of the military in the life of society (on a global, regional and domestic scale) has always been many times higher than their share. Indeed, in the hands of the military and still is the greatest power, with which you can not only force the whole society to a certain behavior, but also destroy life itself on the planet. The role of the military is especially great in states that are or were super-militarized, where the socio-political situation is unstable, where citizens pin their hopes for improving order on the army.

According to the journal "Sociological Research" in 1995, in Russia the army had the highest rating in relation to the elements of the political system. She was trusted by 35-38% of the population. For comparison, let's give data on trust in the elements of the political system: the president and parliament - about 20%, the government - 14%, the court - 14%, the police - 14%, political parties - 5%, trade unions - 16%, leaders enterprises - 15%. At the same time, only 3% of the respondents believe that the current political system of Russia "completely suits" them, and 88% - for its radical change. It is also important to note that trust and respect for the military in most democratic countries is higher than in Russia, and reaches 85-95%. At its core, the army is a part of the state, which bears its generic qualities. This is an organized association of people maintained by the state for the purposes of offensive and defensive warfare. Understanding the essence of such a phenomenon as an "army" is possible through consideration of its main features.

The most important of them is considered to be the organic belonging of the army to the state as a political institution. This feature allows us to draw two methodological conclusions: the existence of the army is of a historical nature; understanding and explanation of the essence of this or that army can be achieved by considering it through the prism of the essence, nature and direction of the state that created it, a certain political system. The army cannot be identified with the institution of politics, because, unlike the real institutions of politics, it is not directly related to political activity, it is not an independent subject of politics participating in the struggle for power and the formation of state policy.

The main feature that distinguishes the army not only from the bulk of state bodies, but also from somewhat related to it (also possessing weapons) power institutions (MVD, FSB, etc.) is the ability to wage war and solve strategic tasks. It is known that war is one of the most important social phenomena. Being a continuation of the policy of the ruling regime, it requires them to mobilize all their forces and means to achieve victory over the enemy, in some cases endangering the very existence of the state. Consequently, the army, as the main subject of warfare, occupies an exceptional position in society and needs constant care and attention.

The general logic of the change in the position and role of the army in the system of political power speaks of its steady dying as a subject of power (source, creator, main carrier, etc.), a decrease in its role as a subject-instrumental factor of power (determining who should be in power, whom and when to remove from it, etc.), the predominance of instrumental-subjective and especially purely instrumental significance in relation to power. The more and more complete exit of the army (meaning its top) from the bowels of power and turning into a nearby tool transforms its role in state-important matters: in ensuring the security of power (socio-economic, political, spiritual, moral, informational and other factors); in the formation of a political course, the adoption of state, including military-political decisions, forms of defending their corporate interests; in the implementation of politics, the management of public affairs, political activity in general.

The trend of "subjectivization" of the army in Russia will come as a result of objective social processes that require the participation of the army as a guarantor of the stability of society. Urgent from the point of view of the formation of a democratic constitutional state is the solution of several important problems, one of which will be the following: how to resist the transformation of the army from an instrument of state policy into an instrument of the policy of the ruling party in a multi-party system?

A regular change of government involves a parliamentary system of political structure as a result of free expression of will in elections. The constant change of leadership naturally brings its own changes to the current policy. But these fluctuations in course, often of an opportunistic nature, should not affect the combat capability of the army, which is called upon to defend the interests of the state and the whole society, which are more permanent than those of the ruling party. It is unacceptable for the ruling party to acquire special rights to influence military personnel. The apparatus of the party that won the elections should not assume the function of direct control of the Armed Forces. Much in resolving this issue depends on how quickly it will be possible to establish a democratic model of relations between the state and political parties. It is impossible to completely protect the army from the influence of parties. But it would be more expedient to legally regulate this influence, taking into account the interests and maintenance of the combat capability of the army, and the functioning of the democratic political system. The best way for a political party to influence the army should, apparently, be its victory in elections, which opens up the opportunity for politicians forming the government to achieve the transformation of their military program from a party program into a state program through its approval by a majority of deputies *.

In the course of building a legal democratic state, it is of great importance that the political authorities correctly understand the role of the army in the development and implementation of a political course, the development of political directions (including military-political ones), and in the management of state affairs. To the extent that the military maintain political neutrality, limiting itself to the performance of their direct duties, there are grounds to talk about the consolidation of the rule of law, as well as the fact that there are important prerequisites and “operational space” for the life of civil society. Where the dual unity "the rule of law - civil society" has become stable, the functions of the army ideally come down to protecting the borders and territory of the state from external threats, maintaining its equipment and skills of personnel at the right level. At the same time, the armed forces are under the complete control of the highest state leadership, carry out all its orders, without claiming an independent political role, and, as a rule, are not involved in resolving conflicts between individual branches of power, within them, between the ruling party and the opposition, between central and local administrative authorities. The concrete relationship between the system of political power and the army in the internal life of states is very complex. There are a number of characteristic types of the relationship between the army and political power:

1) the army plays only an instrumental role, being completely in the hands of political power, being an obedient weapon of the latter;

2) the army, performing mainly the functions of an instrument of state power, has a certain degree of independence up to becoming one of the centers of state power, capable of influencing the main bearers of this power, acting under certain conditions independently or jointly with the entire military-industrial complex which includes, in addition to the army, the military economy, defense science, as well as paramilitary public organizations and movements (associations of veterans, voluntary assistance to the army and navy, etc.);

3) political power is deprived of the army, for example, as happened with the totalitarian regimes of Ceausescu (Romania), Zhivkov (Bulgaria), Honecker (former GDR), etc., when, during the deployment of popular uprisings, the military remain neutral, refuse to follow the orders of dictators, or stand on the side of the people;

4) the army is involved in the struggle for power, the coming of new forces to power;

5) the military take power into their own hands and establish military rule. The nature of the interaction between political power and the army depends on the nature of the social and state system, the political regime, the specific socio-economic and political situation, the strength of the legal order, and the effectiveness of the entire system of instruments of power.

In order to keep the army out of the natural, in a democracy, struggle for political leadership, an effective system of civilian control over this social institution is necessary. The problem of civilian control, as a result of its development, is transformed into the problem of civilian control as a form of regulation of military-civilian relations in a state of law, receives an independent applied sound (a scientific discussion about the ruling elite), and this problem is also considered as one of the aspects of the modern theory of military-civilian relations] .

The army in the system of political power of a rule of law state should be guided by conceptual and methodological approaches to the problem of civilian control and, first of all, by the theory of consent, and secondly, by the theory of separation. The theory of consent considers the forms of interaction between the state and civil society, taking into account the national and cultural conditions of specific states and considering civilian control as military-civilian relations - this is a historically established system of interaction and mutual influence of the civilian qualities of a military organization and the military qualities of civil society, functioning in the interests of military security society, state and individual one of the forms of regulation of military-civilian relations in a transitional political regime *. This theory is preferred for states with transitional political regimes, as it does not require a specific form of government, a network of institutions, or a specific decision-making process. Consent usually takes place in the context of an active form established by legislation, decree, or based on deep-seated historical and cultural values. Internal military intervention can be avoided through cooperation with the political elite and the population.

Separation theory considers civilian control over the army as a form of regulation of military-civilian relations of the rule of law through a certain institutional mechanism (this theory was developed by Harvard University professor Samuel Philips Huntington and reflected in the book Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, published published in 1957). Separation theory gives the most general idea of the border between the civil and military spheres, attention is paid to such principles of civilian control as: 1) severe restriction on political activity or depoliticization; 2) a clear delineation of jurisdiction between civilian and military institutions or democratization; 3) differentiation of "duties" between the "law enforcement agencies" of the state or professionalization.

The main thing in the management of these theories should be the legal mechanism for their implementation, which will ensure such a state and target functions of the army that would not run counter to the interests of the whole society. Of no small importance, in our opinion, will be the moral "self-limiter" in the minds of each of the Russian servicemen, which is one of the most reliable guarantees that the army will preserve its constitutional mission. This requires purposeful information and educational work on the formation of consciousness not only as a "man with a gun", but also as a citizen of his country. The high level of legal and political culture, civil self-consciousness will not allow the army to be captured by extremist ideas in conditions of social instability.

For a deeper understanding of the army of the rule of law, the army in the system of political power of the rule of law, in our opinion, it is necessary to once again focus on the aspect that there have been and are different interpretations of the very concept of "lawful state", and in this regard, the provision army in the system of political power can have different shades. Thus, in the history of Germany in the 19th-20th centuries, there was not a single political system that would not assign the status of a "lawful state". The German state of the time of Bismarck, the Weimar Republic, and the fascist regime of Hitler declared themselves as such. Now, in the Basic Law of Germany (Article 28, part 1), adherence to the basic principles of a social and legal state is confirmed.

In modern conditions, the ideas of creating a rule of law state have been updated in the countries of the former "socialist camp". The Soviet experience is most revealing here. To avoid mistakes and deviations from the doctrine of the rule of law, it is necessary to create a regulatory framework that satisfies the interests of the majority. It should be noted that we have constantly declared the principle: "Everything in the name of man, everything for the good of man." At the same time, we have to state that we have always lacked something to implement it.

The official ideology proclaimed the construction of a nationwide state. True, and this largely remained at the level of the declaration. However, the legal prerequisites for the struggle for the establishment of a state by the people and for the people were nevertheless created *.

The army of a truly democratic law-based state cannot suffer from "political blindness", its personnel are called upon to ensure the security of the state and society. This implies an appropriate level of her political and legal knowledge, achieved by everyday clarification of state policy, Russian legislation, and Russia's national interests.

In a rule of law state, a high social status and respect for the military have never turned into a cult. In the United States, after the failure of the Vietnam War, a powerful wave of criticism of the army rose. Numerous scientific studies and publications, television and radio programs, and works of art were devoted to her. But the American army has not become worse. Having soberly reacted to criticism, she enthusiastically responded to the reform proposed by scientists, acquired a new quality, returning the veneration and love of Americans.

On the contrary, in the former USSR, the military was beyond criticism, which caused great harm to the Armed Forces, the people and the state. Unfortunately, experience has taught us little. And today there are calls not to raise the issue of shortcomings in the army.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the military began to be increasingly used in the political struggle in the former USSR, profound shifts took place in the mass consciousness. In May 1990, for the first time in the country, a postal poll of the adult urban population was conducted: about 70% were against the use of the army inside the country, adhering to the principle "the army is out of politics." Almost 30% believed that the army cannot be outside of politics, it must be used under certain circumstances (to protect the Constitution, ensure security and the rights of citizens). A re-survey (in the spring of 1992) showed some changes: about 55% were against the use of the army inside the country, about 35% were in favor (10% were undecided) politicians and gradually closed this possibility. The main thing in governing the state and maintaining power here is the authority of the law, political culture, civil discipline.

Political scientists in the West have constantly considered the role of the army in the process of political decision-making. Thus, the American scientist M. Janowitz singled out three functions of the military in the system of political power: representative, advisory, and executive. The possibility for the military to influence the process of formation of state policy is left by advisory and executive functions. The scientist believes that the military leadership should have the right to state their position and bring the government to their side, like other government agencies. From the point of view of some leaders, the danger lies in the fact that, firstly, the military differs from civilians in a strong corporate spirit, and secondly, and most importantly, the military always has a weapon at its disposal, which must be “watched with a jealous eye.”

What is the specificity of the political role of the army? It is no secret that at a certain stage in the development of any society, the army acts as a special apparatus in the hands of the economically and politically dominant class for the protection, strengthening and expansion of its domination, the fight against internal opponents and external enemies. Appearing as an organized armed force, it was immediately opposed to a large part of society, began to be used by its smaller part to oppress and enslave the working masses and people. It was the presence in the hands of a minority of such a powerful force as the army that allowed it to dominate the majority, to achieve its goals in domestic and foreign policy. However, the subsequent development and change in the very object of study (society), the gradual elimination of relations of domination and subordination in politics and the achievement of consensus on the main issues of public life, the desire to establish ideally mutually beneficial cooperation between various political forces dictated the need to start looking for ways to put the army under the control of everything. society and restrictions (and in the future, liquidation) of the possibility of using it by any communities to achieve their narrow group goals. This is carried out, first of all, in the process of implementing the principle of separation of powers and creating a system of "checks and balances" between its executive and legislative branches, which do not allow each of them individually to take the "reins of government" of the armed forces into their own hands. In democratic countries, while maintaining centralism in the command of the armed forces, a separation of powers and prerogatives of the heads of state and government, executive and legislative power in relation to the military sphere has long been introduced. It is known that the executive power in the conditions of a presidential republic is less attached to the interests of specific groups of voters and, receiving from them only a “mandate of trust”, focuses more attention on solving national problems, the main ones being: maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, protecting it from enemy. Consequently, the need to maintain defense capacity at the proper level, constant concern for strengthening the army are not just a constitutional obligation of all officials, the executive branch and, first of all, the president, but are gradually turning into a pattern of its functioning, since this task is delegated to it by society * . A new military ideology is already needed, not to mention a radical restructuring of combat training, organization of troops, and so on. The natural change of military ideology requires a new conceptual apparatus.

The existence of an army in a multipolar world will significantly expand the range of its functions. Actions will be added as part of the multifunctional forces, participation in peacekeeping actions, restoration work after natural disasters. The new paradigm for the development of the modern Armed Forces will undoubtedly manifest itself first of all in the trend of weakening the legitimacy of military conscription, the transition from mass armed forces to personnel, professional formations. Hence the blurring of the lines between the reserve and the active, actually operating component of the army. However, the inevitable consequence of these processes - the weakening of the relationship between the army and political power in Russian conditions can turn into painful manifestations of connection with the mental characteristics of Russia. Unlike Western armies, where relations have always been based on legal norms - an agreement between the state and a soldier (most often the hiring of the latter), in the Russian military society, the law of morality, the idea of an artel, the principle: "For one's friend" has been in force from time immemorial. The long guardianship of society over the army, the militarization of the consciousness of the population is significant, the special role of military service in the destinies of many millions of people - this is by no means a complete list of factors that must be taken into account in military development].

Russia needs a new, truly democratic, legal, popular political system, and determining the place, role, and functions of the army in the system of political power is of no small importance. The position and role of the army in the system of political power can be reflected through a number of criteria inherent in the rule of law: the establishment of democracy, parliamentarism and genuine democracy; overcoming militaristic tendencies, preventing and eliminating armed conflicts and wars, violence against society and the people, the army playing only an instrumental role and the inadmissibility of turning it into a subject of politics; political, economic, spiritual and moral, scientific and technical development, ensuring the reliable security of the individual, society and the state.

We need a renewed system of moral ideals and values. Conventionally, they can be divided into three spheres: state (protection of the social-democratic system, economic, political, social, spiritual interests of the people, their life, freedom and independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and its allies, loyalty to the Constitution and the Law); democratic (respect for the dignity of the individual, equality of all before the law, inalienable right to social equality, implementation of social and legal protection of Russian citizens living in the country and abroad); moral and ethnic (love for the Motherland, one's people, respect for the sovereignty of other peoples, national identity, loyalty to the oath, civic and military duty, respect for the honor and dignity of a soldier-citizen, defender of the Motherland; following one's own conscience, friendship and military partnership, respect for elders by rank and age, admiration for a woman, respect for one's own national culture, respect for the customs and traditions of ancestors, national history, etc.)

All of the above leads to the conclusion that the main direction should be a change in the domestic political role of the army during the period of reconstruction of the administrative-command system and the formation of a rule of law state. The use of the army by the political regime against the people and the creation of mechanisms that allow the use of the army within the country (if such a need nevertheless arises), to be carried out only in strict accordance with the Constitution, in the interests of the majority of citizens, with the complete exclusion of the possibility of its independent action in order to seize power. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation can come to the political science model outlined in general terms through an evolutionary, relatively stable state, active reform; intra-army social explosion; participation in a local civil conflict of low and medium intensity; a series of regional, inter-ethnic conflicts; local, focal civil war.

The only possible path that will bring the greatest effect is the first path, all the rest will slow down the development of the army for many decades, leaving Russia without power cover. However, the formation of the army will also be practically impossible without a reasonable reorganization of the military-industrial complex. If, according to experts, by 2005 only 5-7% of Russia's weapons will meet the requirements of the times, then who will need an army equipped with decrepit weapons?

There is another significant destabilizing factor that sharply worsens the starting positions of the new army. This is the destruction of the infrastructure of the former mighty military organism. The hasty curtailment of the air defense forces, the already taken place and future losses in the fleets, the weakening of the Strategic Missile Forces can cost the Russian state very dearly. His Armed Forces to be built will be on a loose, sprawling foundation. The rupture of the once strong ties between the army and political institutions gave rise to an indifferent attitude of the latter towards ensuring its own security. If this continues, Russia will not find peace in this century.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Match the names of theories, terms and ideas with the names of the thinkers and scientists who created them. Please note: there are more names of thinkers than theories.

Fill in the missing words and phrases in the text.

The government intends to further stimulate ____________________ automotive technology and the creation of specialized enterprises abroad. Support for exporters in the form of _____________________ interest rates on loans is still in effect, and for 2012, 3 billion rubles have been allocated for this.

But global automakers do not need help _______________________ yet. Such measures will be needed only in five years - until then, the Renault-Nissan alliance, together with AvtoVAZ, will work mainly to meet the growing _______________ _______________. For all foreigners who came to Russia, the main task is to provide the domestic market with cars. Therefore, they need to dramatically increase the level of localization and increase _________ of locally produced auto components.

Answer:

The government intends to further stimulate export automotive technology and the creation of specialized enterprises abroad. Support for exporters in the form subsidizing rates on loans are still in effect, and for 2012, 3 billion rubles have been allocated for this.

But help for global automakers states until needed. Such measures will be necessary only in five years - before that, the Renault-Nissan alliance, together with AvtoVAZ, will work mainly to meet the growing internal demand. For all foreigners who came to Russia, the main task is to provide the domestic market with cars. Therefore, they need to sharply increase the level of localization and increase quality auto components of local production.

MILITARY THOUGHT No. 5/1993, pp. 12-19

Army and political power

ColonelV.M.RODACHIN ,

PhD in Philosophy

The question of the relationship between the army and political power touches upon one of the fundamental problems of state policy, the solution of which determines the nature of development and the stability of the socio-political system, power relations and society as a whole. The process of democratic development of Russia and other sovereign states of the former USSR made all aspects of the relationship between the armed forces and political authorities extremely relevant.

The army as a guarantor of the stability of political power. Most often, the concept of "army" includes an organized military force maintained by a country for the purposes of defensive or offensive war. It really serves as a kind of "instrument of war", intended for the conduct of armed struggle, although today it is increasingly focused on its prevention. In addition, the army is a specific political institution, despite the fact that the leadership of the Russian Armed Forces in its actions proceeds from the requirement to depoliticize the army, which is not a contradiction. “Decrees of the President of Russia on the departition and depoliticization of the Armed Forces will be strictly implemented,” stressed the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, General of the Army PS Grachev. - Who can't live without politics, let him do it. But first, he must resign from the ranks of the Russian Armed Forces.”

The concept of "politicization" in relation to the army reflects a certain state of it, characterized by the following features!: independent political activity; involvement in politics as an object of struggle of political forces; adherence to any one ideological and political doctrine, party (or internal split of the army into rival ideological and political groups, factions); a combination of professional service with various types of political activity among military personnel. The demand for the depoliticization of the army means the exclusion of these phenomena from the life of the troops. The extreme view of depoliticization, as the complete isolation of the army from politics, testifies to a misunderstanding of its nature, functional purpose, control mechanism, and military practice. Of course, the army cannot be identified with the institution of politics, since, unlike real institutions of politics, it is not directly related to political activity, it is not an independent subject of politics participating in the struggle for power and the formation of state policy. At the same time, as an element of the state organization and political system of society, the army is a political institution that performs important political functions in public and international life.

The main one is related to the foreign policy of the state, since it is in this area that the main mission of the army is realized - to be the guarantor of reliable military security and the national interests of the country. Of much greater interest is the internal function of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, through which their purpose as an element of state organization and political power is revealed. Today, it has become obvious that the army should not interfere in internal political processes, even by order of the authorities and in the interests of the state. However, only 27% of the surveyed participants in the All-Army Officers' Meeting, held on January 17, 1992, ruled out the legitimacy of exercising the internal function of the armed forces of the CIS countries. The circumstance that the political leadership of the Soviet Union repeatedly used the army in areas of political tension, interethnic conflicts, which caused a negative public attitude, had an effect. Nevertheless, 63% of the surveyed officers were convinced of the need for an internal function of the army. Official developments and scientific works have appeared that explore its content both in general terms and in relation to the Joint Armed Forces of the CIS and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

It is appropriate to recall that even Aristotle, N. Machiavelli, and other thinkers wrote that the army has always been an instrument of "maintaining power against those who disobey" its will, "the basis of power in all states." At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the army does not necessarily carry out its internal function by means of direct military violence. This option is allowed only in the most extreme cases, when all other methods have not given the desired results. As a rule, the internal function manifests itself indirectly in the form of the presence of the army in a given territory, its control of key facilities, the steadfastness of its positions in a particular conflict situation that destabilizes the socio-political situation, and the threat of the use of force.

The internal functions of the army can be provided in different ways and serve the interests of various socio-political forces. Therefore, if one and the same function is manifested, for example, “to serve as a support of power and be a guarantor of the political stability of society”, it can perform “progressive” or “reactionary”, “conservative” or “democratic”, “nationalist”, “national-patriotic” , "internationalist" and other political role. Numerous examples of internal political struggle in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Tajikistan and other sovereign states convince us of the ambiguity of the political role of national armed formations oriented towards various socio-political forces.

The main content of the internal function of the Armed Forces is the support of the constitutional order, the political power legally elected by the people, the prevention of mass, and even more armed, anti-constitutional actions of political forces in opposition to the authorities, as well as spontaneous conflicts and clashes that destabilize the social situation. By implementing it, the army is called upon to play a democratic political role, to act as a peacekeeping force separating the conflicting parties.

Traditions, the type of the established political regime, the degree of its freedom in relations with the authorities, etc., have a significant influence on the content of the functions of the army and the nature of the tasks it performs. The strength of traditions in relations between the army and the authorities has always been great. During the past centuries, some states have developed and encouraged the tradition of subordinating military leadership to civilian authorities. In the United States, for example, not a single general has ever sent troops to the White House in history. Any attempts to disobey the authorities or disagree with the policies pursued by the president or congress ended in the immediate dismissal of the military leaders who dared to do so. This happened to General D. MacArthur during the Korean War and to the hero of the war in the Persian Gulf, General N. Schwarzkopf. The tradition of subordinating the army to political power has historically developed in Italy. The armed forces practically did not participate either in the establishment or in the overthrow of Mussolini's militaristic regime. Before the revolution, Russia also had a strong tradition of obedience to the military, inspired by the ideas of faithful service to the autocracy and the Fatherland. In the Soviet period, the relationship between the authorities and the socialist army was based on the principle of unconditional subordination of the latter to the institutions of power, controlled and directed by the party. Even the massive Stalinist repressions against commanding cadres did not provoke protest and resistance to the authorities.

In a number of other countries, the opposite trend has developed. The Spanish military, for example, has always shown a certain independence from the government and sought to impose the necessary decisions on it. Opposing the efforts of the authorities to establish tight control over the armed forces, they have repeatedly threatened democracy with conspiracies. And in February 1981, parliamentarians and the Cabinet of Ministers were held hostage for some time. Traditions of distancing themselves from civilian power and the political independence of the army have developed especially prominently in most countries of the Third World, which lack a developed economic, social base, and political system. In these states, the army is the most organized and powerful military and political force capable of imposing its will on the government or replacing it.

One of the most important factors in determining the relationship between the army and political power is the type of political regime. At totalitarian regime three models of their relationship are known. The first is "party-totalitarian" (Stalin's regime of power). Political domination is carried out monopoly by the leadership of the ruling party (civil party nomenclature). The army becomes the most important and completely subordinate, controlled object of party power. The second - "semi-military-totalitarian" (Hitler's regime). Political power is in the hands of the ruling party elite, which is either an organic component of political power, or the most powerful and influential force of pressure on it. The army is both the central object of political power and its partial subject. The third model is "military-totalitarian", or "stratocratic" (from the Greek "stratos" - army). In it, the army pushes back the political party and exercises sole (monopoly) political leadership. Under such a regime, the usual authorities are abolished or replaced by the military. For example, the Brazilian gorilla regime, established in March 1964, proclaimed in Institutional Act No. 1 of the Supreme Revolutionary Command that "the victorious revolution legitimizes itself as a constituent power." On this basis, the president, 6 state governors, 46 members of the Chamber of Deputies, 4,500 employees of federal institutions were removed from power. In all models, the army performed the function of the most important support of totalitarian power and was the guarantor of the order established by it. Since its goal was to ensure complete and universal control of power over all aspects of state, public and even private life, the political role of the armed forces could not but be exclusively reactionary - gendarme and repressive-militaristic.

The authoritarian regime of power includes the following models: "civil-authoritarian", "semi-military-authoritarian" and "military-authoritarian". The army in them occupies the position of an object completely subordinate to authoritarian power. Despite the external similarity of the models of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of power, the political role of the army has significant differences. The authoritarian regime, representing a strong state power, does not extend its influence to all spheres of public and private life. He allows a certain freedom to political institutions, including political parties and some public organizations. The principle of separation of powers does not actually work, even if there are formal structures of legislative, executive and judicial power. It is concentrated in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, or a small authoritarian group.

The political role of the army is not always reactionary. It can also be patriotic, peacekeeping (preventing class clashes, civil war), consolidating social forces and strengthening the integrity of the state. If the authoritarian regime is a transitional form from dictatorship to democracy, the political role of the army has a clear democratic orientation. Almost always, successful economic and political modernization was supported by the army (Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea). It helped the reform-minded authoritarian government to launch a fight against corruption and bureaucratic machinations, mobilize all the country's resources, carry out market reforms and suppress by force the actions of those strata that tried to prevent them. This is how the authoritarian-military regime of Pak Chung-hee operated, which established itself in February 1961 in South Korea. As a result, the foundations of the current prosperity of the country were laid, although its political system is not yet fully democratic.

In a democracy (democratic regime) there is a special model of effective civilian control over the armed forces, based on the unconditional recognition by the military of the supremacy of civilian political power. It is not unified and has many options for practical implementation. This takes into account national specifics, the applied mechanisms of civilian control, etc. The extreme version of civilian control involves the complete removal of the army leadership from direct access to the top political leadership, especially the president, and the military personnel from any participation in politics, which can result in alienation army from power and the actual lack of control over the actions of military leaders. In such a situation, the civil rights of military personnel are infringed, if not completely ignored.

The "American" version of civilian control is as follows. Firstly, the congress was given the right to discuss and approve the military budget, to demand a report from the highest military officials on the situation in the army, to issue charters, instructions regulating the actions of the troops; secondly, the civilian ministry of defense, where the minister and his deputies are civilians, exercises direct military-political control of the troops; thirdly, the political rights and freedoms of military personnel are limited by significant legal prohibitions.

The “German” variant of civil control is distinguished primarily by the fact that, in addition to the legislative rights of the parliament, a special institution of the authorized Bundestag for defense was established “to protect fundamental rights and as an auxiliary body of the Bundestag in the exercise of parliamentary control”. He is elected by Parliament for a term of 5 years and reports only to him, having great powers. In addition, the Minister of Defense is a civilian, while his deputies and other army leaders are military. The political leadership's confidence in them stems from a desire not to undermine the effectiveness of military command and control. Finally, members of the armed forces are considered "citizens in uniform". They are guaranteed equal rights, including joining political parties (at the same time, it is forbidden to act in the service in the interests of the party), participation in political events during off-duty hours. Campaigning, political speeches, distribution of printed materials, combination of service with deputy activity are not allowed.

The desire to create effective civilian control over the Armed Forces was also expressed by the Russian political leadership. So far, only its contours have been outlined: parliamentary control, which provides, under the Law of the Russian Federation "On Defense", the right of the Supreme Council of Russia to adopt a military doctrine, approve the military budget, determine the structure and strength of the Armed Forces, agree to the appointment of a high military command, decide on the use of the Armed Forces for abroad; separating the organs and functions of administration belonging to the civilian Ministry of Defense and the General Staff; departization of the Russian army; legal ban on her interference in politics. It will take a long time before the mechanism of civil control will be debugged in all details, and most importantly, will work effectively.

This control will contribute to the exercise of the army's political role, or, as the Italian constitution says, "conform to the democratic spirit of the Republic." This will find its real expression in supporting the government legally elected by the people, protecting, as Article 8 of the Spanish constitution says, the constitutional system and order, and ensuring the stability of the socio-political situation. It should be emphasized that the stabilizing role of the army is not limited to a forceful reaction to actions that threaten society from within, fraught with "big, senseless bloodshed." It ensures the stability of society by its non-participation in the political struggle, the absence of party sympathies and antipathies, the impossibility of using it for political and other purposes, the firmness and consistency of its political positions, focused on supporting the law, state foundations, legislative and government power.

However, it should be recognized that the army does not always succeed in playing a stabilizing, as well as a democratic role. In a number of cases, it independently interferes in politics, becomes an active subject of power relations.

Military coups and political activity of the army. In countries where the opinion about the "need for a strong hand" was formed in the mass consciousness, the army entered the political arena, identifying its power with the strength of political power. This is especially true for developing countries. Over 550 military coups have taken place in Latin America over the past 150 years. Bolivia alone withstood 180 military coups from 1825 to 1964. Military dictatorships dominated Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile for a long time.

In February 1992, they unsuccessfully tried to take power in Venezuela. The military demonstrated their influence during the political crisis in Peru, where on April 5, 1992, President A. Fujimori dissolved the parliament, arrested a group of its leaders and suspended some articles of the constitution. The strong support of the army for the president's actions allowed him to control the situation and resolutely implement his program to break the "constitutional impasse".

In Asia, the military is an active participant in the political struggle. According to G. Kennedy, during the period from 1945 to 1972 there were 42 military coups. And in the future, their activity in this part of the world did not decrease: coups in the Philippines, Fiji (1987), Burma (1988), Thailand (1991). In a number of countries - Sri Lanka, Burma, Pakistan, South Korea - the army is a powerful political force, and the highest military ranks are an integral part of the government. In Iraq, after the military coup (1978), one of the most repressive regimes of S. Hussein is preserved.

Africa also remains a stable zone of military coups. From 1948 to 1985, 68 heads of state and government were removed from power. The military seized power in Nigeria and Liberia (1985), Lesotho and Uganda (1986), Togo and Somalia (1991). In January 1992, under pressure from the military, Algerian President Bendjedit was forced to resign, signing a decree dissolving Parliament. In May of that year, Sierra Leone President Joseph Momo was overthrown by the armed forces.

Quite high activity was demonstrated by the military and in the political life of some European countries. For example, in Greece over the past 50 years there have been 11 military coups. In Spain, since 1814, there have been 52 military putschs, including the last two attempts (in 1978 and 1981) under a democratic system. The Portuguese Armed Forces played a decisive role in the April "Carnation Revolution" in 1974, which ended the fascist regime. The French army in 1958 and 1961 challenged the government. In Poland, in the context of a growing political crisis, President W. Jaruzelski implemented a state of emergency with the help of the army. The Yugoslav People's Army assumed the role of force trying to preserve the integrity of the federal statehood in Yugoslavia and suppress separatist movements. The events of August 19-21, 1991 in the former Soviet Union were regarded as a military putsch by many political leaders and publicists. However, an objective and comprehensive analysis shows that, firstly, it was precisely an attempt at a coup d'etat, in which government and party structures became the main organizers. Secondly, only a part of the top command and political leadership, drawn into the plans of the conspiracy, sought to use the army as a strike force. The conclusions of the commission investigating the participation of the Armed Forces in the coup d'etat and the parliamentary hearings in the Supreme Soviet of Russia, held on February 18, 1992, confirmed that the army was predominantly on the side of the domocracy. “The army did not go against its people,” Air Marshal E. Shaposhnikov, Commander-in-Chief of the Joint Armed Forces of the CIS, noted in the report, “it did not raise weapons against them, the composure of the majority of generals, officers, personnel of the army and navy, their balanced assessments of the events unfolding in the country did not allowed the August coup to have an unpredictable result.”

Awareness of the inadmissibility of military participation in politics by force found its manifestation in the trend of their gradual removal from the political struggle, which was noted at the Madrid conference of political scientists in 1990. However, it is premature to declare it “dominant in the 20th century” and to assert that in Europe this process “has long ended”, and in “Latin America it is nearing its complete and irreversible completion.” As for Europe, it is not limited to the western part, where since the beginning of the 80s there have really been no attempts at military coups and other forms of army intervention in the struggle for power. With the collapse of totalitarian structures and the rise of democratic and national movements in the countries of Eastern Europe and the states located in the European part of the territory of the former USSR, the likelihood of military intervention in power relations has increased. It has already become a reality in Yugoslavia, partly in Poland and Romania. In the countries of Latin America, the frequency of military coups has noticeably decreased. But there are no serious grounds for concluding that they will be completely excluded in the future. To do this, the causes that give rise to them must be eradicated.

The likelihood of direct military intervention in politics increases significantly in an environment of deepening social and international instability, especially when governments and other power structures lose control over the development of events and are unable to take and implement effective measures. It has long been noted that military personnel almost always support a well-functioning civilian government. Conversely, one of the persistent factors pushing them to prepare and carry out coups is a weak, mediocre government. Therefore, it is impossible to give an absolute guarantee that even the most stable countries of Western Europe today will be able to avoid a period of destabilization of social or international life in the future that can provoke a military coup.

According to the conclusions of leading Western political scientists, such as J. Lepingwell from the University of Illinois, such situations most often arise in the so-called systemic conflicts that threaten the fundamental interests of society, national security, sovereignty and integrity of the state, the constitutional order and public order. Traditionally, the army acts as a guarantor of social and political stability and the integrity of the state. Defending the interests of security, it considers itself a force responsible for preventing civil strife, preventing chaos, anarchy, and the collapse of the country. Its motto is "Politics belongs to the parties, the Fatherland belongs to the army." In a detailed study by T. Horowitz, devoted to identifying the reasons for the involvement of the officer corps of Sri Lanka in the preparation and commission of military coups, the influence of precisely these factors that cause systemic conflicts is shown. Their action takes place and, moreover, is intensifying in Russia and the CIS. First of all, the further recession of the economy, the deepening of inflationary processes, the multiple increase in prices, and the threat of mass unemployment inspire alarm. Economic instability is complemented by escalating political contradictions and ethnic conflicts. In Russia, a tense struggle continues around the problems of the state system, the adoption of a new Constitution, the distribution of power between the legislative and executive bodies, the center and the subjects of the Federation. After the declaration of the sovereignty of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Tuva, Chechnya, the danger of Russia's disintegration remains. There was a tendency for a number of states to lose interest in strengthening the Commonwealth. The Collective Security Treaty was signed by representatives of only six states - Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Bishkek, unfortunately, did not become the birthplace of the new confederation.

Such a development of events is not only painfully perceived by many military personnel, primarily personnel, but also significantly offends their interests. All this can become a powerful incentive for the intervention of the army in politics, which a certain part of the public is looking forward to. A telephone poll of opinion leaders at the end of March 1992 showed that 10% of them were sure that the military would replace the Democratic team. A strong provoking factor here is the difficult social situation of servicemen and members of their families, the oppressive atmosphere of the growing split, discrimination based on nationality, the increasing incidence of unpunished attacks on soldiers and officers, the sad result of which is the death of many of them. Insufficient attention of the authorities to the increasingly complex problems of the army also contributes to its politicization. More than once in the resolutions of officer meetings, an unprecedented demand for army public structures was expressed for the governments of the CIS states to take into account the interests of military personnel. The tension potential accumulating in the Armed Forces may eventually reach a critical mass.

Seeing in the army the "savior of the state and the nation", many ordinary people and some theorists take as a model the results of the coup of the Chilean junta carried out in 1973. And if until recently the name of General Augusto Pinochet was for everyone a symbol of reaction and dictatorship, now it acquires the exact opposite meaning and is associated with the success of social reforms and the dynamism of the Chilean economy. Of course, this experience is indicative, but in many ways it is unique. During the 16 years of the established regime, the military junta managed not only to overcome the state of crisis and instability in which the society was, but also to create the necessary prerequisites for its further development through the privatization of almost all production (with the exception of the copper ore industry and air transport), external debts, healthcare, education, as well as - for the first time in world practice - social security.

And yet, stratocracy in any form, according to the conclusion of most political scientists, is ineffective as a form of government and regime of power. First of all, because the management of the state, in the final analysis, is not the business of the army. This requires special knowledge and skills. Moreover, the more developed the society, the less acceptable is the command style of management in it. The tightening of discipline, responsibility, and other measures of "restoring order" that the army is able to carry out can only have a short-term effect, since they will not eliminate the root causes of the social crisis. The military regime established as a result of the coup, according to S. Feiner, will not be able to secure a sufficiently broad and strong support in society necessary for reforms. It is impossible to achieve civil consent by military means. They do not stimulate the labor activity of citizens either. The absolutization of power by the military turns against the army itself. “As soon as the military in some state have lost their political virginity,” W. Gutteridge writes, “military discipline falls, the professional tradition of recognizing the authority of power dissipates.”

Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the army is not only a military, but also a political institution of society, an important instrument of state policy, a guarantor of security, integrity and stability of the political system and society as a whole. By its nature, its political role can be negative. It is impossible to achieve complete depoliticization of the armed forces. Departization of the army is acceptable and necessary. Secondly, the relationship between the army and political power is complex and contradictory, due to many factors. Depending on the specific circumstances, there may be different "models" of the relationship between the army and government. The model of civilian control over the armed forces meets the requirements of civilization and democracy. Thirdly, in the conditions of social and political instability, the development of crisis processes, the army is able to enter the political arena as an independent political force, including the preparation and conduct of military coups and establishing stratocracy - direct military rule. Fourthly, military coups are an unacceptable form of resolving social and political crises in modern conditions. The state and society must do everything to keep the army from directly interfering in politics.

Civil peace and harmony. Peaceful resolution of conflicts in society. - M.: MVPSH, 1992. - P. 92; military thought. Special issue. - 1992. - July. - C.4.

Aristotle. Works. - T.4. - M.: Thought, 1984. - S.603.

Machiavelli N. Sovereign. - M.: Planeta, 1990. - P.36.

Mirsky G.I. The role of the army in the political life of the third world countries. - M.: Nauka, 1989.

Antonov Yu.Yu. Brazil: army and politics. - M.: Nauka, 1973. - S.220.

Pankina A. Can the army stabilize the country. - New time. - 1990. -S. fifty.

Woddis J. Annies and politics. - New York, 1978. - P.9.

Kennedy G. The Military in the Third World. - London, 1974. - P.7.

Mirsky G.I. The role of the army in the political life of the third world countries. - C.4.

Modern capitalism: a critical analysis of bourgeois political concepts. - M.: Nauka, 1988. - P. 112.

Army. - 1992. - No. 6. - P.17.

Free thought. - 1992. - No. 2. - P.68.

Lepingwell J. Institutional Change and Soviet Civil-Military Relation. - Chicago. -1990-P.4.

Horowitz T. Conp Theories and Officers Motives: Sri Lanka in Comporative Perspective.-Princeton, 1980.

New time. - 1992. - No. 17. - C.17.

Truth. -1992. - January 14; News. -1992. - 2nd of March; Independent newspaper. - 1992. -April 30.

Waipin M. Militarism and Social Revolution in the Third World. - N.Y., 1981.

Third World Quarterly. - 1985. - N 1. - P.17

Theories, terms, ideas

Names of thinkers, scientists

1. social class
2. social contract
3. latent functions
4. social institution
5. cultural lag
6. social mobility
7. sunset of Europe
8. multiculturalism
9. social action

BUT) K. Marx
B) E. Durkheim
C) J. Locke
D) R. Merton
D) P. Sorokin
E) W. Ogborn
G) O. Spengler